From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:19:08 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Shit! Message-ID: <961130171908_1884646549@emout18.mail.aol.com> Shit! I just hit the button to send off my latest post to Alan and then I see a PRIVATE POST coming in from Kym. The latter turns out to be just about as cordial and good-humored as you can imagine, and of course I now feel worse than Ann on "Lemming Day.". . . My apologies to Kym. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 11:50:36 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Kookie Neo-theosophy? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961130225036.0068d08c@whanganui.ac.nz> At 10:32 PM 29/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >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 > That is nasty stuff of put up with. I hope you get on top of it soon. A lot of what you mention is talked about on the Milleum list which I read but do not really get involved in. I have become acquainted with a web page that features the Datre teachings that are different but quite interesting. As I have been dabbling in these areas for quite some time, I have developed much more discrimination and Datre have left a favourable impression even though it is channeled stuff. They say similar things, just different analogies to try to explain stuff that is not yet part of our intellectual framework. There has been hot disputes over the 'Death Star' and now the guy who 'discovered' it says there was a bug in his software or what ever and he made a mistake. The MMlist have covered this topic extensively and there seems to be doubt about it's existence. Relationship issues are certainly taking a battering and it seems to me that many are checking out of this existence. I am continually confronted with people around me dying with cancer and they are around the 55-70 age group as well as an unusual number of young suicides, whether by car or other means. There have been 16 youth suicides in the last few months and they are still coming. I understand that as a change in the frequencies of the planet and some are not able to hold them or else they have chosen not to be here at the moment. We perhaps need to be aware of the changes and keep an eye on our own reactions so that we can hang in without too much wear and tear. I understand shingles needs rest and recreation :-) so I wish you lot of that. Cheers. > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 12:33:15 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961130233315.006d4efc@whanganui.ac.nz> At 04:55 PM 30/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >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. I will stick my neck out too and agree with you. I have not said much lately because I have grown much in my understanding due to the study of Vitvan's teachings. One thing I have learned is that everything is energy in the final analysis and much of what people argue about has no actual referent when seen in that light. It is probably fun and dramatic to argue and defend one's views but in the end, noone takes much notice unless they themselves understand the issue or subscribe to it. It has taken me many years to finally realise that what excites me only bores others even though some have tried to tell me that for as many years as well. I came to the point recently, where I had to decide if it was worth the expenditure of energy to impress my point of view on others when there was a lack of interest in such a view and I decided that I would not bother. I do not need others to corroborate my viewpoint even though it has value for me. I have also followed heated discussions here on many topics and in the end each one retains their view and the discussion dies a natural death with much emotion and energy used up in the process. > >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. . . . Here is a little fuel for the fire from Vitvan. In his book The Christos (1951) he writes: "When we get to the final analysis or ultimate understanding, we find that humanity on this planet is one brotherhood, one family. That is not an ideal we are working towards; it is a fact that we have to 'discover'. We have to discover that we are all integrated in the same field, and because we are integrated on one field we are brothers; that is, we are one family. At this point, remember we do not mean equality of development; we mean there are elder brothers and there are babies just born and all the gradations between - yet the race on this planet is one family. We must learn this and we can apply it to contemporary events. Because when we, the elders, neglect our duty to the younger brothers, we begin to pay dearly for that neglect and the younger ones gang up and turn against us. All the long-winded reasons and ramifications and international policies and the making of a lot of noise could be done away with and sum it all up in a simple little sentence:- the elder brothers exploited the younger ones instead of helping them along, just like a real elder brother in a family will help the babies coming on. That is why it is a fact that must be discovered and not an ideal to be brought in. It is a fundamental basic fact that we are integrated and what affects one will affect the whole. Why learn this the hard wayl, with rivers of blood and the wrecking of whole peoples." (Bee says; please read brothers to incorporate all persons regardless of sexual orientation.) Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 17:48:34 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: <33XrOIAyNHoyEwlz@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <961129224213_1751189289@emout09.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >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. > Alan--> YUK! --------- 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 17:50:19 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: perfected Message-ID: <0ntrqOAbPHoyEwlj@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199611300407.XAA06444@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >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.) So I noticed :-) 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, 1 Dec 1996 00:33:17 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: A perpetual one, it seems Message-ID: In message <32A075EA.4BE1@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >> What does Zen say about Mahatmas? > > "If you see a Mahatma, you don't." You can rely on Zen! Thanks Bart. 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, 1 Dec 1996 00:39:28 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Shit! Message-ID: <1d7LELAAPNoyEwGe@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <961130171908_1884646549@emout18.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >Shit! > >I just hit the button to send off my latest post to Alan and then I see a >PRIVATE POST coming in from Kym. The latter turns out to be just about as >cordial and good-humored as you can imagine, and of course I now feel worse >than Ann on "Lemming Day.". . . > >My apologies to Kym. > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle > After the brown stuff, what next? Having read Bee's quote from Vitvan and my brilliant observation on its clear importance and veracity, can we now sign you up for TI? Alan with attitude (friendly). --------- 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, 1 Dec 1996 00:32:17 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: In message <1.5.4.32.19961130233315.006d4efc@whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown writes >Here is a little fuel for the fire from Vitvan. In his book The Christos >(1951) he writes: >"When we get to the final analysis or ultimate understanding, we find that >humanity on this planet is one brotherhood, one family. That is not an ideal >we are working towards; it is a fact that we have to 'discover'. We have to >discover that we are all integrated in the same field, and because we are >integrated on one field we are brothers; that is, we are one family. Oh what an important message this is, Bee! Vitvan here qualifies his use of "brotherhood" by adding "family" in such a way that the meaning is clear (IMO) that "family" is as good a way of putting it as any, and I would suggest that he implies that it is a better way, as (for example) sisters in a family do not need to be called "brothers" or be members of a "brotherhood" and neither do mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, or anyone in between . This may be the same thinking that led the inspiration (not mine) to use the term "family" in preference to "brotherhood" when formulating the Theosophy International "alternative" or complementary statement of intent with its variation on the three objects. The most imortant point of your quote is: >That is not an ideal >we are working towards; it is a fact that we have to 'discover'. This, to me, is the ultimate message of theosophy. Like it or not, we all "belong together" - would it not be a good idea to get to like it, and to like each other? This is why I am such a fervent supporter of TI, which speaks in terms of family, amity, and respect for all life. So I honestly find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to hold out or hold forth against such sentiments. Sincerely, 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 21:34:19 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: brotherhood or some such Message-ID: <199612010244.VAA25481@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >beneath the surface it may be indicative of some far deeper attitude problem >on my part which needs to be corrected. > Richard, To my way of thinking what you need most to correct is that you're being vulgar. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 21:41:16 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: brotherhood Message-ID: <199612010251.VAA26765@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Richard, I guess you're counting yourself among the more verbose shrinking violets who populate this list. Well, ok then. Best wishes Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Dec 1 07:26:52 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: perfected Message-ID: <199612011226.HAA12296@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199611300407.XAA06444@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >>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.) > >So I noticed :-) > >Alan Hey, so I got a little bored.:) --- The Triaist "Life is like a box of chocolates. And I keep picking the fruity cremes. --Hint: I mentally and physically dislike the fruity cremes, and if I don't get a caramel soon, I think I'll blame it on you" --Fred Seiko From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 19:39:47 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Zen & the Art of HTML Message-ID: <199612011334.IAA10567@cliff.cris.com> Thanks, Doss, for the interesting post on the intricacies of doing web pages. It seemed to me that the author was urging people to be more aware of making their web pages compatible with many browsers. However, from what I have seen on the web, most people seem to be ignoring his advice and going for the full-speed ahead creativity angle. Personally I've found animation delightful rather than distracting. Someone has had trouble accessing my page through AOL. I'm not subscribed to AOL and I'm wondering if anyone here can tell me what browser is used and if there is something special that needs to be added to the usual URL. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 07:47:50 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Art & Zen of HTML - rest of the msg Message-ID: <32A18C86.325@eden.com> For some reason some of us did not get the full text. So I am posting the rest of the message. Sorry for the mess up. I should have checked. MKR =========================== Continued from the previous post: 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 information and graphics, and for interacting with the user. Use as many defaults as possible, Override them only when necessary, such as to set the background color to white, or to center an image. But the best way to use HTML is not to use it. The newest WYSIWYG web page editors let you put together web pages without using HTML. Most of them also have a way of viewing the underlying HTML code so experienced users can have more control over the fine points. Advertising Advertising has come to the web. Now, someone will pay you to put their advertisement on your web page. What an opportunity. Not only can you make gobs of money, but your page will look "successful." (Otherwise, why would someone bother to advertise on it?) But while other advertising media are aimed at influencing your next purchase, web ads have a completely different goal -- to get a visitor to leave your web page and go to the advertiser's site. (You only get paid if someone leaves your page and goes to the advertiser's page.) You can be sure that the designers of the ads will try their very best to get folks to leave your page. But that's not all. You may not have any say about what the advertisement says or about the subject matter. Or even worse, what the ad does. Imagine, someone else's animated image on your page. Hmm... wonder why your page doesn't load correctly any more. A large ad at the top of your page may create a certain amount of confusion as to the actual ownership of the site. If you have a commercial site, you're going to look pretty silly with an ad for another company on your pages, especially when the goal of that ad is to get visitors to leave your site. Some might wonder why your company can't afford to pay for its own web site. And don't forget the free ads that many sites carry. Sort of like paying extra for clothing that displays the designer's name in large letters. Most of these free ads are for the latest browsers or plug-in components that you absolutely must have to view the site properly. Others have created "awards" that you can use to decorate your page. Remember that they're also links to the site of the folks who give out the awards. Is anyone getting rich from letting others put an ad on their page? Only a few of the mega-busy sites. For the rest of us, it's just another Internet get-rich-quick scheme. "Whose web site is this, anyway?" > Henri de Toulouse-LaTech, On viewing a page with three animated web ads, two "download me now" browser buttons, and six meaningless web awards. Maintenance It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The world changes, the web changes, and one day your site will have to be upgraded. Is your site easy to modify? Is it easy to make additions and changes? Some of the things that make a site difficult to change are sloppy formatting of HTML code, imagemaps, and a site where every page links to every other page. Can your site be maintained or modified by someone besides you? In the world of commercial web sites, it's more than likely your site will eventually be inherited by someone else. Have you left them a clear path to follow? If you use browser-dependent features on your site, you will have to have two or more versions of your pages -- a maintenance headache. Format your HTML documents so that they are easy to read. Use blank lines and spaces to separate elements. Create a set of uniform formats and styles for your pages so that you can create a new page by copying and modifying an existing page. If you have links to other sites ("My Mondo Cool Link List"), you owe it to your visitors to keep these links up-to-date and accurate. You should check them on a regular basis to change or modify links to sites that have moved, and to remove links that now lead to dead ends. Fortunately, there are a number of shareware tools that can aid in this process. Consider building high level tools to support and maintain your web site. One example would be a "gallery editor" with a graphical interface that lets you lay out galleries or catalogs by dragging images around, then automatically generates the HTML. Consider using automated maintenance to build and maintain your HTML pages. Advice Don't be a web critic. Withhold your criticism until someone actually asks for it. Be positive. Make suggestions, give advice, offer help. Point out problems such as missing images and bad links. Be private. Send your comments by email rather than posting them in public. Put your ego where others can't see it. And don't forget to send praise to the sites you really like. It gives people the energy to keep going. A final quote: "I'm more interested in new ideas than I am in new technology." > Henri de Toulouse-LaTech A final Zen thought: Before putting something on a web page, think about its real-world equivalent and use that as a guide. If there is no real-world equivalent, it's a bad sign. A final word: Don't be a Netscape bigot. Who knows what tomorrow will bring. A final hint: Don't give people special instructions on how to view your site, like: Change these browser settings Open the browser window --- this wide --- Stop right now and download this other browser Best viewed with ... Only viewable with ... Download this plug-in Set up this helper application Turn off the underlining Download this special font You don't have Java? Go away! If you lived here, you'd be home now. And a final note from the author: What will "fourth-generation" web sites look like? (The first three generations have already been spoken for.) If you want to know, read "Art and the Zen of Web Sites." "What's the difference between the Boy Scouts and the web? The Boy Scouts have adult supervision." > Vincent Van Gui Tony Karp, TLC Systems Corp - tkarp@tlc-systems.com Send me email - tkarp@interport.net Visit our web sites: Techno-Impressionist gallery: http://www.techno-impressionist.com TLC Systems (More web stuff): http://www.tlc-systems.com Web-Scope (tm) statistics: http://www.web-scope.com Last modified November 29, 1996 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 07:51:18 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Zen & the Art of HTML Message-ID: <32A18D56.7CE6@eden.com> Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > Thanks, Doss, for the interesting post on the intricacies of doing web > pages. > > It seemed to me that the author was urging people to be more aware of > making their web pages compatible with many browsers. > > However, from what I have seen on the web, most people seem to be > ignoring his advice and going for the full-speed ahead creativity angle. > Personally I've found animation delightful rather than distracting. > > Someone has had trouble accessing my page through AOL. I'm not > subscribed to AOL and I'm wondering if anyone here can tell me what > browser is used and if there is something special that needs to be > added to the usual URL. > > -Ann E. Bermingham Hi, Ann: While I do not know much about HTML/AOL, all of us get free AOL browser disk from time to time. I think you can install it and see how your pages look. You may get some feed back. Also you can ask your friends who are on AOL to visit your pages and get their feedback. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:30:13 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Perfect Mahamats Message-ID: <961201123012_1684264088@emout03.mail.aol.com> The mahatmas don't know it because Pat wasn't around to tell them. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:36:01 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Sexism and Comparisons Message-ID: <19961201183558.AAA28088@LOCALNAME> Kym wrote: >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." This depends on what is meant by sexism. If sexism means to believe that men and women are not identical, then saying that women are more emotional than men and that men are more logical than women is sexist. If sexism means to be prejudiced towards men or women, then these contentions might be sexist and they might not be. If sexism means that what general differences one sees between men and women are incorrect, then it depends on their truth value as to whether these contentions are sexist or not. Regardless of whether or not these contentions are sexist or not, the accusation of sexism merely because they do not regard men and women as identical is very likely prejudiced itself, since it is so obvious that men and women are so different. In fact, one of the many differences is that men think more generally than women, so that women are more likely to see sexism in generalizations that they are not willing to make. Since I agree that men are more logical than women and that women are more emotional than men, in no sense do I consider these contentions to be sexist. The "divine wisdom" does not mean promoting harmful ideas, but it does not mean not seeing differences between groups of people, either. >Some "interpreters" of esotericism have managed to insert a skanky side into >the literature (ex: Aryan "superiority," Monad "laggards," etc.) If Aryans really are superior, what is wrong with regarding them so? Unless the spiritual development of all individuals is identical, there have to be laggards. I see no virtue in not making comparisons. >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." To some extent, people see what they want to see, but to some extent, they are objective, also. People are a mixture of the two. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 15:56:10 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: to RI Message-ID: <32A1F0EA.2E88@worldnet.att.net> RI to AB: >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. What part of "misunderstood" don't we understand? I got the joke, Richard. Maybe Alan was having a bad hair day? >I was bothered by the big "gang-up" on Patrick for his >"Purpose of Sex" position. I am sorry to have bothered you, Richard, but this was a subject that I just couldn't, in good faith, let pass. Actually Patrick's ideas on the purpose of sex are in the Theosophical majority--G de P himself says no less. However, it is such a psychologically unhealthy attitude, that I always find myself on the defensive when I hear it. It is one of the few official TS positions with which I strongly disagree. For one thing, most who champion it are single and celibate, and thus know nothing at all of real intimacy (rather like Catholic priests when they engage in marriage counseling). In fact, I was shocked by all the support I got on theos-l (where theosophical heretics tend to hang out, rather than the true believers) and the number of those who argued against Patrick's position, which is, in fact, the TS party line. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 18:08:22 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 744 Message-ID: <199612020007.TAA15517@beasley.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Sexism and Comparisons > In fact, one of the many differences is that men think more > generally than women, so that women are more likely to see sexism in > generalizations that they are not willing to make. Since I agree that men > are more logical than women and that women are more emotional than men, in > no sense do I consider these contentions to be sexist. Your comments prompted me to contribute another thought. Anyone who does astrological charts will tell you that the general psychological make-up of that person can be viewed in the natal chart. There may be indications of logic or emotionality in the signs of the planets and where the planets are placed in the houses. These qualities are there at the moment of birth and present in one's lifetime and perhaps modified as one's life unfolds. If one were looking for evidences of mental, spiritual or emotional attitudes in the personality, this is where one would get the goods, rather than in the overall blanket of viewing people by their sex, race,creed, etc. The idea that came to me from this post was that those personality qualities present at birth are then masked by a female or male template. My guess is that the characteristics may very well sometimes override or be stronger than the usual male/female tendencies, creating quite a more complicated situation. In short, I have known men who had hearts made of marshmallow and women who would lead a line of marines into battle. We are all deeper than our skin and the parts thereof. If you really want to look beyond the mask, look to the chart. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 19:45:05 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Sexism and Comparisons Message-ID: <961201194407_1684317838@emout09.mail.aol.com> Hi, Tom! Welcome to the List! Gutsy choice of subjects to start out with. . . . Personally, I won't be writing anything for a long time which can be remotely dragged into the "gender area," so I am just going to remark for now that you seem to have a very readable, high-quality style of writing. I hope we see much more of it on a variety of topics. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 21:13:10 EST From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: on Gender Language Message-ID: <199612020213.1456700@microfone.net> One of the front page stories in the local Sunday paper today here in central New Jersey is on the experience of the Episcopal Church in its efforts to "modernize" some of that Church's cannon and prayer book. The current experiment was largely carried on only here in NJ, but the previous national changes in 1979 led to succession of some traditionalists and the creation of several splinter groups. The proposed change which drew the greatest number of comments was in the wording of The Lord's Prayer: relying largely on a New Zealand revisionist text, the intent was to portray God as other than the elderly white man in the clouds. The traditional prayer begins, "Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name." The experimental version began "O God in heaven, Mother and Father of us all, hallowed be Your name." Some churches were outraged, some were pleased, more than a few considered the changes "inevitable" and most expressed reservations of some sort or other. The only real agreement, it seemed, was that all Episcopalians questioned were glad for the opportunity to think about and discuss the words used in their worship services. (S. Chambers writing in the Star Ledger) ******************* There are similarities here, imo, to some things said in earlier posts on theos-l. The parallels are not exact, but The Lord's Prayer is probably the closest thing in orthodox Protestant Christianity to the way Theosophists view the Three Objects of our Society. The idea of changing the wording of the Objects is very important to some, less so to others, and quite likely a non-issue to the majority of TSA members. In the case of the Episcopalian prayer, one argument against any change was that God Himself had chosen the wording and if "Father" was good enough for Him, who can argue? [note: Christ reportedly gave The Lord's Prayer to His disciples in response to the direct request, "Lord, teach us to pray." Luke 11:2] That sort of reasoning is where the similarity between the two events breaks down. Does the wording of the Objects reflect the IDEA that was first expressed by the founders some 120 years ago? Or has our language changed in ways that mean the original idea is obscured by present day connotations and meanings? Personally, I'm in the this-is-no-big-deal category. But since it is so important to some, it makes for interesting reading on theos-l. I wish there was more thought given to the proper expression of the idea that was once universally thought of as "Brotherhood". English sounds are not based upon mantric law, as those in Sanskrit alledgedly are, but there may still be enough of this "idea:spoken word" connection to warrant careful consideration before undertaking changes on words so fundamental to the Society. If the point is for "the nucleus" to become universal, then the mission statement must express something which is universally admirable. A question: when "Brotherhood" (as a gender neutral idea such as was envisioned by the TS founders) is translated into other languages, does the idea still take a masculine form? Jim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 01:31:52 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: perfected Message-ID: <8zppvLAIGjoyEwFh@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199612011226.HAA12296@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >Hey, so I got a little bored.:) Don't we 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: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 16:08:57 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Brotherhood again Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961202030857.0069330c@whanganui.ac.nz> At 09:02 PM 30/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >In message <1.5.4.32.19961130233315.006d4efc@whanganui.ac.nz>, Bee Brown > writes >>Here is a little fuel for the fire from Vitvan. In his book The Christos >>(1951) he writes: >>"When we get to the final analysis or ultimate understanding, we find that >>humanity on this planet is one brotherhood, one family. That is not an ideal >>we are working towards; it is a fact that we have to 'discover'. We have to >>discover that we are all integrated in the same field, and because we are >>integrated on one field we are brothers; that is, we are one family. > >Oh what an important message this is, Bee! Vitvan here qualifies his >use of "brotherhood" by adding "family" in such a way that the meaning >is clear (IMO) that "family" is as good a way of putting it as any, and >I would suggest that he implies that it is a better way, as (for >example) sisters in a family do not need to be called "brothers" or be >members of a "brotherhood" and neither do mothers, fathers, sons, >daughters, or anyone in between . > >This may be the same thinking that led the inspiration (not mine) to use >the term "family" in preference to "brotherhood" when formulating the >Theosophy International "alternative" or complementary statement of >intent with its variation on the three objects. > >The most imortant point of your quote is: > >>That is not an ideal >>we are working towards; it is a fact that we have to 'discover'. That is what I thought too. That ideal is already part of the Cosmic Plan, it is just us that have not realised that yet and when we 'discover' this is the way of progress to peace and a fuller life then perhaps we will hurry and care for each other in a supportive way. > >This, to me, is the ultimate message of theosophy. Like it or not, we >all "belong together" - would it not be a good idea to get to like it, >and to like each other? This is why I am such a fervent supporter of >TI, which speaks in terms of family, amity, and respect for all life. > >So I honestly find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to >hold out or hold forth against such sentiments. I highly recommend taking a look at the book The Christos on the Vitvan webpage. He wrote that in 1951 and it is remarkable how simply he explains such a vast subject. I am in touch with the School in Nevada and they are more than happy to let any part of the writings be used without referring to them for copyright permission. They feel that any such writings should be freely available to whomever may gain some use from them. I even have their tee-shirt :-) It has the aum sign in the centre of a circle of leaves and flowers and their name discreetly on one sleeve. I wear it around everywhere. > >Sincerely, > >Alan Cheers. > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 00:21:38 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: to RI Message-ID: <961202002137_2049678013@emout03.mail.aol.com> Jerry, There are, I would guess, relatively few theosophists under 70 who would actually support Patrick's views. But then how many theosophists under 70 are there? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 00:39:02 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: to RI Message-ID: <961202003902_1252766229@emout03.mail.aol.com> Richard Ihle writes--> 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. Jerry Schueler writes--> What part of "misunderstood" don't we understand? R.I.--> Looking back on it all, I think my greatest area of weakness has been in explaining the Seven-Year-Cycle model of "psychomaturation." This is a paradox, because I become more convinced about it each year--not in terms of an exact accuracy of the seven-year intervals and their all-important "mid-points" (when one begins seeing the characteristics of the next Cycle), but rather just as a general indicator of the esoteric pattern by means of which the "incarnation-embrangled I AM" has potential egoic delusions progressively opened up to it. Sometimes people have mixed up The Seven-Year-Cycles with the cognative maturation of Piaget and Bruner; sometimes, the "moral maturation" of Kohlberg; sometimes the who-knows-what of Erikson. The basic problem, of course, is that not so many people have a long-enough history with meditation or other practices which involve learning to discriminate the Self from one more subtle level after one more subtle level of "Substance." Thus, when I might say there is a egoic sense in which a person who has a headache can actually temporarily ~be~ (a semi-Self) the physical sensation of the headache, they have no inner-observation of themselves to relate it to. To suggest that a small child cannot have that egoic experience until somewhere towards three-and-one-half (mid-way through the Animating Cycle when the egoic possibilities of the Physical Cycle begin) would make no sense to them at all. To say that an eight-year-old could ~have~ a feeling but might not be able to ~be~ that feeling in the same egoically deluded sense as a fourteen-year-old might sound demented to them. But even for the individuals who are able to attach my words to internal correlatives, I feel that both my inadequate motivation to share these things at length and my imperfect writing skills are sufficient reasons for cultivating a healthy resignation on the making-myself-understood issue. Fortunately, I don't think Adeptship is necessarily dependent upon anyone understanding my version of the Seven-Year-Cycle system. What I think it does depend upon, of course, is an individual's ongoing ability to keep the "Once-Removed-Vantage" on whatever "contaminated" condition of consciousness the embrangled part of the I AM is using at the moment. For example, in my most recent interchanges it was necessary to utilize Desire-Mental consciousness (contrary to philosophy class, one can seldom expect to prevail with only pure, dispassionate reason); however, I would have been ashamed of myself if I did not realize I was utilizing it. Certainly, I would not have been able to keep much "playful quality" which results from doing something and seeing oneself do it at the same time. (So many people on this list seem to lose arguments just because they ~become~ their side of the argument 100%.) Unfortunately, I did slip into ~complete~ Desire-Mental consciousness more than a few times, perhaps most notably with my way-too-fast "Shit! post," the title of which I am now ashamed of. Oh well, I didn't say I ~was~ an Adept yet, just working on it. . . . Which brings me to a "being misunderstood" which perhaps both you and I still share like the "One-Track-Hounds" I referred to long ago--viz, our mutual conviction that all the philosophizing, theosophizing, genderizing, and whatever-else-izing all add up to zero IF WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING NEW WITH OURSELVES BY MEANS OF THEM. Thus, you might even agree, Jerry, that many people do not understand that whatever our "messages," they are the messages of practical men, first and foremost--perhaps even urgent men--: that we talk . . . but that we never ~stop~ to talk. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:18:27 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <199612020618.XAA23909@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >This depends on what is meant by sexism. Sexism is: 'the economic exploitation and social domination of members of one sex by the other, specifically of women by men' - Webster's Dictionary. I agree with this definition. >Since I agree that men are more logical than women and that women are more >emotional than men, in no sense do I consider these contentions to be sexist. The >"divine wisdom" does not mean promoting harmful ideas, but it does not mean not >seeing differences between groups of people, either. In this world we live in now, it is considered "inferior" to think emotionally, whereby those who think logically are considered "superior." If someone put two people in front of us, and asked us to choose who we would want to lead, or be in authority - whom do you think we would choose if we took as law the statement you claim to agree with? To say that "men are more logical than women and that women are more emotional then men" is, and I use this term again, simplistic. And it horribly shortchanges individuals and society. It is this kind of thinking that leads to social domination - how many of us have heard a women being dismissed with the expression, "She's definitely on the rag!" or "must be PMS!" when she strongly voices an opinion. Women are kept from positions of management (economic exploitation) with the imagined fear they may be too easily manipulated. How many times have we seen men bury emotional expressions simply because they fear they may be seen as "weak" or even "gay," which will apply a feminine label to the male rendering him below, or inferior, to other males? Logic implies strength and clear thinking. Emotion implies weakness and muddled thinking. Men and women are capable of both types of thinking. >If Aryans really are superior, what is wrong with regarding them so? Unless >the spiritual development of all individuals is identical, there have to be >laggards. I see no virtue in not making comparisons. What criteria do you use in making comparisons? I don't know if race and Aryan are interchangeable terms - it seems sometimes they are and aren't. I thought race in theosophy meant awareness, and/or types of consciousness and forms. All I know is that we have seen the results of those who claim to be qualified to judge who's Aryan and who's not, or who's a laggard and who's not, being erroneous with dire and lethal consequences - employing divine wisdom as justification for heinous acts. pax vobiscum, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 23:52:13 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 744 Message-ID: <199612020652.XAA24436@snowden.micron.net> Richard wrote: >I just hit the button to send off my latest post to Alan and then I see a >PRIVATE POST coming in from Kym. The latter turns out to be just about as >cordial and good-humored as you can imagine, and of course I now feel worse >than Ann on "Lemming Day.". . . Perfect timing, I see. :-) >My apologies to Kym. Apology accepted. However, I feel kind of weird saying that, since, in reality, you were just giving me a dose of my own medicine. 'Tis good I think for that to happen every once in a while. . .lessons learned. Nothin' like a big ole' piece of humble pie (actual humble pie is made of deer entrails) - and, let me tell you, "pretend" humble pie goes down just about as easily. My apologies to you, Richard. pax vobiscum, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 09:17:18 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: <32A2E4E3.5516@earthlink.net> > 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? If a letter is found, for example, as an ancient document, and no copyright is found or known, then whether or not it is in the public domain a person may put a copyright notice on the media (book, email, etc.) in which it is published. That is all that was done. There was never any claim made to exclusive copyright for the letter. 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, 02 Dec 1996 11:05:38 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Sex & Creation Message-ID: <32A2FE13.5EA1@earthlink.net> In The Secret Doctrine Vol II (1979) pp. 411-415 the issue of procreation is discussed with a perspective on the needs of human evolution. Also, for those who study A. Bailey's writings, the book "A Compilation on Sex" provides a thorough assessment of the issues surrounding this subject. - 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, 02 Dec 1996 11:55:22 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: <32A309BC.5C5E@earthlink.net> > > 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? > > If a letter is found, for example, as an ancient document, and no > copyright is found or known, then whether or not it is in the public > domain a person may put a copyright notice on the media (book, email, > etc.) in which it is published. That is all that was done. There was > never any claim made to exclusive copyright for the letter. Also, the procedure followed is concordant with Section 107 (fair use) of U.S. Code Title 17 (copyright law). 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, 2 Dec 1996 11:26:04 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: On Mon, 2 Dec 1996, Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > > Also, the procedure followed is concordant with Section 107 (fair > use) of U.S. Code Title 17 (copyright law). No it is *not* ... it was not claimed that the *email post* was copyrighted, but rather, clearly implied that copyright priviledges were being claimed for the 1900 Letter. *Your own words* are all that you claim the right to, *not* those of the 1900 Letter, and to even imply such is not only against the spirit, but close to breaking the letter of the copyright law. Besides, this is a TS list, with a considerable number of published authors in residence, and the continued insistance that no wrong was done by a member that actually attempted to *give us permission* to use an historical theosophical document so long as we used it according to conditions *he* articulated - well, a student that attempted to do such a thing at my university would at best be reprimanded by a faculty member, and at worst recieve a probationary status. It may not have technically against the law, but for any member to hold such a proprietary attitude towards a document of that nature in a theosophical circle comes close to being an insult. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 14:15:56 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: <32A32AE9.6976@earthlink.net> > No it is *not* ... it was not claimed that the *email post* was > copyrighted, but rather, clearly implied that copyright priviledges were > being claimed for the 1900 Letter. No, there was no such claim, and as no one inquired of me as to what I was doing, any perceived implications, are, by law, not applicable. > *Your own words* are all that you claim > the right to, *not* those of the 1900 Letter, and to even imply such is > not only against the spirit, but close to breaking the letter of the > copyright law. No such implication was ever made, and the procedures followed are legal. > Besides, this is a TS list, with a considerable number of published > authors in residence, and the continued insistance that no wrong was done > by a member that actually attempted to *give us permission* to use an > historical theosophical document so long as we used it according to > conditions *he* articulated No such thing was ever done or implied, accusations of illegality or wrong-doing are unnecessary when a civilized inquiry would resolve the matter. 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, 02 Dec 1996 14:40:04 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter...(apology) Message-ID: <32A33091.1A2C@earthlink.net> In looking over the posts on this topic I believe that some of the mis-understandings would be that I copied a file of the 1900 letter that had a "copyright 1900-1995" text at the end. This was a mistake and for this I apologize. - 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, 2 Dec 1996 13:55:49 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter... Message-ID: <9612022155.AA32577@toto.csustan.edu> PA >If a letter is found, for example, as an ancient document, and >no copyright is found or known, then whether or not it is in the >public domain a person may put a copyright notice on the media >(book, email, etc.) in which it is published. That is all that >was done. There was never any claim made to exclusive copyright >for the letter. JHE I'm afraid that you have been misled again. You may not put a copyright notice on the "media" which a document "is published" either. You don't own the media, and you may not copyright what is not your property. It does not matter whether the document is "ancient," even if you were the one who found it. You may copyright your translation of the document; You may copyright your comments and annotations concerning the document; You may copyright your paraphrasing of a document; Under certain circumstances you might even be able to copyright how you organized the fragments of a document as was done in recent legal disputes concerning the Dead Sea scrolls. But you may not put a copyright notice on the document itself nor on the media. In the case of the 1900 letter, it is the *physical property* of the Adyar Theosophical Society (but not its intellectual property). About sixty years ago C. Jinarajadasa published a photographic copy of the letter in THE THEOSOPHIST, but he had blocked out certain passages. About nine years ago, the ECLECTIC THEOSOPHIST published a transcription of the same letter, and for the first time, included the missing portions. This transcription has since been reproduced by several other journals. Neither the Adyar Theosophical Society nor Point Loma Publications would have much of a case if they wanted to claim a copyright to this letter. Legally, the author of this letter would be presumed dead, and no family members have come forward to claim their rights to it. Therefore the letter is in public domain. PA >Also, the procedure followed is concordant with Section 107 >(fair use) of U.S. Code Title 17 (copyright law). JHE Actually, the fair usage act does not apply here, because the document is in public domain. Anyone is free to reproduce this letter. The fair usage act was formed for the benefit of researchers and reviewers who are engaged in academic work. Under this act, one may cite or quote from copyrighted material, without prior permission, for purposes of writing reviews and for quoting in the course of writing original material. But under no circumstances does it give one a right to reproduce an entire document for publication. Republishing a copyrighted document is called piracy, and I assure you that it is illegal. If the 1900 letter had been copyrighted, you would have had committed an illegal act by posting it here. If it had been copyrighted, and you wished to reproduce it, you would have been required to get permission from the copyright owner. If you have followed this procedure, your notice would have read: Copyright [year] by [the name of the person or organization who actually owns the copyright]. Reproduced with permission. Since the letter was in public domain, your only obligation was to cite where you had copied the letter. But to say that the letter was "copyright" in "1900 and 1995" means that you are giving notice that you own the copyright. I hope this helps ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 16:06:08 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter (last post) Message-ID: <32A34485.21D0@earthlink.net> The 1900 letter is in the public domain. If someone publishes it in any media they may put copyright on the media and this does not effect the letter's status in this regard. End of thread. 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, 02 Dec 1996 21:41:01 -0500 From: Logia Unidad de la ST rama Mexicana Subject: Saludos desde hace mucho Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961203024101.0066b3ec@planet.com.mx> Saludos a todos los de el foro!! Lamentablemente, como siempre, este foro esta muy callado, bueno creo que es clasico, porque no tenemos buenos temas de discusion. No obstante, me intereso por que continuemos con este canal y espero que así lo intenten ustedes. Bueno, mi intervencion de hoy, es para indagar cuestiones relacionadas con algunos emails que he visto sobre los Fraudes de Blavastky, a traves de el Theos World. Ustedes saben porque se le da tanta difusion a este "problema", o como ven ustedes el mismo?, creen que pueda afectar en algo a la sociedad o cual sea el motivo de una discusion tan larga en este servicio? Tambien me he enterado de que existe un libro llamado "K.H. sin velo" escrito por un señor que se apellida Lille, creo, segun entendi, que este libro demuestra que el libro "las Cartas a los Maestros" no tiene ninguna validez, por lo menos dialecticamente hablando y que entra en contradicciones, por lo que al parecer, desvirtua por completo las creencias que se tienen a cerca de los maestros, segun dice en el prefacio mandado a traves de Theos World, esta persona indica que "posiblemente, estas cartas fueron automandadas y compuestas por Blavastky misma con el fin de dar sustento a sus palabras". Lo que yo pienso es que no hay porque darle tanto tiempo a discutir este topico, habiendo tantos otros que abarcar, si alguien sabe algo de esto o quiere cometarlo por favor hagalo. A Eric Escalante, ya vi las ligas y me parecen buenas y muy interesantes, hay mas? Gracias por su tiempo a todos. Saludos fraternales desde Mexico ----------------------------------- Logia Unidad de la ST rama Mexicana unidad@planet.com.mx http://www.planet.com.mx/~unidad/index.htm No hay religion mas elevada que la verdad From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 20:48:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: N Janikiram - Passing Away Message-ID: <32A4E665.20D4@eden.com> I just picked up the following from www.theosophical.org. I had the pleasure of meeting him one time several years ago. One of the lesser known fact about him is the fact that he comes from the traditional "untouchable" castes and it may be recalled that H S Olcott started the first school for "untouchable" children in I believe around 1890. May his soul rest in peace. ===================================== Passed to Peace We regret to announce the passing of Mr. N. Janikiram, Assistant Secretary, on August 24, 1996. He was born in 1923 and was one of the earliest students at the Besant Theosophical School. Later he worked in the Secretariat of the Government of Tamil Nadu, retiring as Deputy Secretary in 1977. During his long years of service to the Theosophical Society at Adyar, he was at various times Assistant Treasurer, Manager of the Vasanta Press, and Secretary of the Olcott Education Society. His continual interest in the Lodges of the Madras Theosophical Federation and the Tamil Districts Federation was a source of strength to the work in these areas. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 13:31:21 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: on Gender Language Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961203003121.0069bdb0@whanganui.ac.nz> At 09:19 PM 01/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >One of the front page stories in the local Sunday paper today here in >central New Jersey is on the experience of the Episcopal Church in its >efforts to "modernize" some of that Church's cannon and prayer book. > >The current experiment was largely carried on only here in NJ, but the >previous national changes in 1979 led to succession of some traditionalists >and the creation of several splinter groups. The proposed change which drew >the greatest number of comments was in the wording of The Lord's Prayer: >relying largely on a New Zealand revisionist text, the intent was to portray >God as other than the elderly white man in the clouds. The traditional >prayer begins, "Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name." The >experimental version began "O God in heaven, Mother and Father of us all, >hallowed be Your name." > >Some churches were outraged, some were pleased, more than a few considered >the changes "inevitable" and most expressed reservations of some sort or >other. The only real agreement, it seemed, was that all Episcopalians >questioned were glad for the opportunity to think about and discuss the >words used in their worship services. > (S. Chambers writing in the Star Ledger) >******************* > >There are similarities here, imo, to some things said in earlier posts on >theos-l. The parallels are not exact, but The Lord's Prayer is probably the >closest thing in orthodox Protestant Christianity to the way Theosophists >view the Three Objects of our Society. > >The idea of changing the wording of the Objects is very important to some, >less so to others, and quite likely a non-issue to the majority of TSA >members. In the case of the Episcopalian prayer, one argument against any >change was that God Himself had chosen the wording and if "Father" was good >enough for Him, who can argue? [note: Christ reportedly gave The Lord's >Prayer to His disciples in response to the direct request, "Lord, teach us >to pray." Luke 11:2] > >That sort of reasoning is where the similarity between the two events breaks >down. Does the wording of the Objects reflect the IDEA that was first >expressed by the founders some 120 years ago? Or has our language changed >in ways that mean the original idea is obscured by present day connotations >and meanings? > >Personally, I'm in the this-is-no-big-deal category. But since it is so >important to some, it makes for interesting reading on theos-l. I wish >there was more thought given to the proper expression of the idea that was >once universally thought of as "Brotherhood". English sounds are not based >upon mantric law, as those in Sanskrit alledgedly are, but there may still >be enough of this "idea:spoken word" connection to warrant careful >consideration before undertaking changes on words so fundamental to the >Society. If the point is for "the nucleus" to become universal, then the >mission statement must express something which is universally admirable. I think you have a good point about sounds being based on mantric law. I suspect that there is still a bit of that in the English language because much of it has come down from the time when this was known. Also I understand that words can carry vibrations of various sorts so maybe HPB was knowledgeable in this area and chose certain ways of expressing the Theosophical concepts because of their vibrational value. When I read, there will occur a sentence that suddenly has meaning to me over and above the rest of the page and I suspect that the vibes represented by those words set up a similar vibration within my mind and so a sort of recognision takes place. This could possible be more common with architypal ideas expressed in sounds that correspond to the vibrations of the symbol. > >A question: when "Brotherhood" (as a gender neutral idea such as was >envisioned by the TS founders) is translated into other languages, does the >idea still take a masculine form? > >Jim > > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 03:08:30 +0100 From: "Kim Poulsen" Subject: copyright Message-ID: <199612030212.VAA10472@elvis.vnet.net> I could not resist posting the hard facts on copyright. It's against my principles, as Patrick is on his own, but the question is vital to me. The following is from the Berne Convention (1971 Paris revision) and the US Copyrights Acts - either verbatim or rendered freely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Berne Convention" is the Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, signed at Berne, Switzerland, on September 9, 1886, and all acts, protocols, and revisions thereto. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- National treatment: Under Berne, an author's rights are respected in another country as though the author were a national (citizen) of that country (Art. 5(1)). For example, works by U.S. authors are protected by French copyright in France, and vice versa, because both the U.S. and France are signatories to Berne. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Minimum terms of protection: Under Berne, the minimum duration for copyright protection is the life of the author plus 50 years (Art. 7(1)). Signatory nations may have provide longer durations if they so choose. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is "public domain?" In contrast to copyright is "public domain." A work in the public domain is one that can be freely used by anyone for any purpose. It used to be that if a work was published without notice, it lost all copyright, and entered the public domain. That's no longer true, and now public domain is more the exception than the rule. There are still a number of ways that a work may be public domain. - The copyright may have expired........................... - The copyright might have been forfeited. For example, the work may have been published without notice prior to the change in the law that eliminated the notice requirement (March 1, 1988, the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act, PL 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- here's a short analysis of copyright duration. (from US copyrights act) Generally, for works created in 1978 or later, a copyright lasts for fifty years beyond the life of the work's author, after which it lapses into public domain. 17 U.S.C. 302(a). If the work is prepared by two or more authors (a "joint work"), its copyright lasts for fifty years after the last surviving author dies. 17 U.S.C. 302(b). For anonymous and pseudonymous works, and for works made for hire, copyright exists for 100 years from the date of creation, or 75 years from the date of first publication, whichever comes first. 17 U.S.C. 302(c). No renewal is necessary or permitted. (The year 1978 in this paragraph is because January 1, 1978 is the date on which the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect.) For works published in the years 1904 through 1963, the copyright lasted for 28 years from date of publication; if the copyright was not renewed, it lapsed, and the work went into the public domain. Another 28 years of protection could be obtained by filing a renewal, for a total term of 56 years (1906 comes from the fact that the U.S. effectively switched to a 47-year second term in 1962, and 1962 minus 56 (the old maximum duration of two 28-year terms) equals 1906). If the copyright was not renewed after its initial 28-year term, the work lapsed into public domain. Generally, all copyrights secured in 1918 or earlier lapsed at the latest in 1993 and are now in public domain (1993 (last year) minus 75 equals 1918). Copyrights secured in the period 1919 through 1949 continue to exist only if they were renewed, and expire in the period 1994 through 2024. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once a work is in the public domain, whether by expiration of copyright or by expressly being dedicated to the public domain by its copyright holder, it can never again regain copyrighted status. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ......... In short, Patrick could do just about anything (including selling us his copy) - except copyright it or impose any limitations on its use whatsoever (even notes like - "this may only be used....etc." are slightly out of order.) Please check out: http://www.aimnet.com/~carroll/copyright/faq-home.html http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html Thank you, Kim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 22:29:46 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <32A39EAA.10D6@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Tom wrote: > >This depends on what is meant by sexism. > > Sexism is: 'the economic exploitation and social domination of members of > one sex by the other, specifically of women by men' - Webster's Dictionary. > I agree with this definition. I would call it "discrimination based solely on gender", myself. Note, however, that the term "Webster's Dictionary" is in the public domain; ANYBODY can publish a dictionary, and call it "Webster's Dictionary". The dictionary most people think of when they say "Webster's Dictionary" is actually MERRIEM-Webster's Dictionary. Other good ones are American Heritage, Random House, and, of course Oxford. Which one did you use? > In this world we live in now, it is considered "inferior" to think > emotionally, whereby those who think logically are considered "superior." > If someone put two people in front of us, and asked us to choose who we > would want to lead, or be in authority - whom do you think we would choose > if we took as law the statement you claim to agree with? Actually, what is needed is a good balance of logic and emotion. One of the keys to the new femnism is a realization that there are statistical differences between men and women, but that each individual must be measured on their own merits, and that both the statistically male and the statistically female characteristics are necessary for humanity to thrive. > To say that "men > are more logical than women and that women are more emotional then men" is, > and I use this term again, simplistic. And it horribly shortchanges > individuals and society. Yes, and yes. > It is this kind of thinking that leads to social > domination - how many of us have heard a women being dismissed with the > expression, "She's definitely on the rag!" or "must be PMS!" when she > strongly voices an opinion. I know of a case where there is an extremely gemerous and capable woman who is loud and brash, and an extremely selfish and manipulative woman who is very quiet and "feminine". However, many men who should know better consider the former to be unspiritual, and the latter to be highly spiritual. These men are threatened by a powerful, decisive woman who doesn't know "her place", although they would deny it if confronted by that fact. The first woman is penalized for her openness and honesty, while the second woman is rewarded for her duplicity. And that is the lesson our daughters are being taught. Bart Lidofsky Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:07:51 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: to RI Message-ID: <0VmLWAA3M1oyEwm6@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <961202003902_1252766229@emout03.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >Unfortunately, I did slip into ~complete~ >Desire-Mental consciousness more than a few times, perhaps most notably with >my way-too-fast "Shit! post," the title of which I am now ashamed of. Oh >well, I didn't say I ~was~ an Adept yet, just working on it. . . . Ummm ... Richard, I actually thought that was one of your best posts ever, and I am serious. Why - because it was straight to the point, came straight from the heart, and it was honest. There is no religion higher than 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: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 22:45:05 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Sex & Creation Message-ID: <32A3A241.4569@sprynet.com> Patrick Alessandra Jr. wrote: > > In The Secret Doctrine Vol II (1979) pp. 411-415 the issue of > procreation is discussed with a perspective on the needs of human > evolution. Of course, if you insist on reading Blavatsky in the light of the Cult of the Failed Messiah, then you might consider it as sort of "In Adam'f fall, we finned all" manner. Being brought up without a concept of "Original Sin", I look at it in the light of the 4th root race reincarnating into the 5th root race. By accepting the "fruit of the tree of knowledge", the 5th root race became sentient. With sentience comes an awareness of one's own death, but also a realization of one's creative potential. In Jewish thought, the story of Adam and Eve was God appointing humanity his partners in Creation. There was no magic quality in the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; the knowledge was that it was physically possible for humanity to act independently of God's wishes; humans are on a par with God, not mindless subjects of God. > Also, for those who study A. Bailey's writings, the book "A > Compilation on Sex" provides a thorough assessment of the issues > surrounding this subject. To be polite to the proponents of Alice Bailey here, I will merely say that I find her thoughts on sexuality to be, at best, clouded by personal prejudice. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 21:07:56 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 745 Message-ID: <199612030407.VAA18042@snowden.micron.net> Jim writes: >The traditional prayer begins, "Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy >name." The experimental version began "O God in heaven, Mother and Father of us >all, hallowed be Your name." > (S. Chambers writing in the Star Ledger) Dear Episcopalians, Way to go! Wishing you well, Kym A member of the TSA Mantra: We're fusty, musty and rusty - and damn proud of it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:18:44 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter (last post) Message-ID: > > The 1900 letter is in the public domain. If someone publishes it in any > media they may put copyright on the media and this does not effect the > letter's status in this regard. > > End of thread. > > P > -- > *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA > *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html > and this does not AFFECT the letter's status in this regard GtC...also familiar with the English language -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 01:44:08 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Copyright 1900 letter (last post) Message-ID: <961203014407_1985695989@emout16.mail.aol.com> Gertrude, Have patience. The man is from TEXAS remember. They don't speak english down there, they have their own language. :) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 02:15:01 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: A compilation on sex Message-ID: <32A3FD97.1F5E@earthlink.net> Patrick wrote: >Also, for those who study A. Bailey's writings, the book "A >Compilation on Sex" provides a thorough assessment of the issues >surrounding this subject. I was wondering if anybody was going to mention this little volume. I know that it has helped me a lot with my inquiries into the subject of sex. I however cannot completely agree with Patrick that the purpose of sex can be so simplistically put. By the time I got done with that book my head had expanded so much that I'll never look at sex quite the same way again. >From my read, the "compilation" spoke of so many more dimensions and correspondences to "sex" that took it out of the merely human arena to the point where it becomes the cosmic "purpose" of the divine itself. No wonder the mystics call it "bliss!" The book also stated repeatedly that the "solution to the problem of sex" would be ... a while in coming (no fun intended!) I have a few general questions though: What do you think the proliferation of birth control methods has done to stimulate our cultural attitudes towards sex and what effect do these attitudes have on our psyche as spiritual aspirants? How does the near constant presence of sexually stimulating content in our culture at large affect our ability to perceive ourselves and each other? Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 02:24:01 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Three for the day/from ArtHouse Message-ID: <32A3FFB2.2CFB@earthlink.net> yesterday, in the early evening we could not have been in more perfect harmony. yin essence, yang essence swirl and blend all things into One. this morning, I rise lazily to greet the sun behind the haze. one wonders about the misty cling ... discordant notes frustrate the composition. insistance on explaining the Great Mystery strikes the stomach; vibrates ... such a thing lends itself not to explanation. if it did, it would not be the Great Mystery. _______________________ I AM in man. lusts arise in me, desire, passion, instincts, urges rage. all animal natures prowl through me emotions positive negative tender, quiet, strong, furious, a questing mind, aching to understand, confused, making mistakes, wanting to know; human. ___________________________ when spoken to "love loves," one preserves it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 11:16:16 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Re: A compilation on sex Message-ID: <32A45214.4B05@earthlink.net> > The book also stated repeatedly that the "solution to the problem of > sex" would be ... a while in coming (no fun intended!) Also, there is a quote that the next two generations (after WWII) would be able to solve the problem. We're working... > What do you think the proliferation of birth control methods has done to > stimulate our cultural attitudes towards sex and what effect do these > attitudes have on our psyche as spiritual aspirants? As mentioned in the book, birth control is unnecessary and focusses us in the wrong direction. The idea is that the sex impulse be used cyclically and transmuted to higher creativity except as needed for bringing children into the world. > How does the near constant presence of sexually stimulating content in > our culture at large affect our ability to perceive ourselves and each > other? Makes everyone mis-identify their own needs. 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, 04 Dec 1996 06:06:17 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Copyright lite Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961204121833.1eefcd2c@iprolink.co.nz> The following is a low-copyright zone, from Kay's Kuts, a twice-in-a-lifetime publication by a niece of mine. How many post-structuralists does it take to change a light bulb? None. With each one bringing a new meaning to the process, they cannot agree on what a light bulb is, where it is or whether the process of change is oppressive. In addition, if they do manage to change it, there could be anything stuck back in that could be read as a lightbulb. It's nice to be reminded that theosophists aren't the only ones with a light bulb problem. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 14:43:54 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Gender Language Message-ID: <199612031953.OAA02372@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Jim, The idea of "brotherhood" is that everything in the universe is interrelated. I realised this one day, when I was thinking over that we contain in our bodies all sorts of minerals that also exist in the rest of the universe. If you imigineer around the "Secret Doctrine" the first human beings were kind of a fog which sort of accumulated in space, and over the eons took on more & more of a definite form. The rest of creation also evolved from whatever gases & etc. were emitted from the big bang. If you think of sort of amorphous entities floating in space, away from the big bang, to me, this fortifies the ideas that we're all one, differentiated. Everything in this universe had its beginnings at the same source. The SD also says that at the conclusion of our human cycle we'll all again be able to act as one, but we'll also be differentiated human beings. So, that's Brotherhood. At least it was Brotherhood 120 years ago, when anybody who was anybody was a man. Women weren't considered to be very much, they were just beginning to make a racket to be counted. At that time, when the man was the boss, everybody thought of our universality as a Brotherhood ... women as well as men. It was the style of the times. Well, it's not the style anymore. I'd rather think of human "families", to which men & women contribute equally. But the most important thing is that lots of young people, whom we'd like to attract to the TS, are completely turned off by that kind of terminology. They won't even look twice at an organization that says it champions brotherhood. The latter is my biggest reason for wanting to change it. But I also protest to calling it brotherhood out of principle, because I am and, in this life, have always been a sister. On a personal note, where do you live in Jersey? I'm in Syracuse NY now, but I grew up in Newark, & my kids grew up in East Orange and Bloomfield. I worked for the State, and besides working in & around Newark, was stationed in Morristown, Passaic and Hackensack. Best wishes Liesel ....................................................................... > jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: on Gender Language From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 12:09:18 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Copyright of 1900 letter (last post) Message-ID: <9612032009.AA02249@toto.csustan.edu> PA >The 1900 letter is in the public domain. If someone publishes >it in any media they may put copyright on the media and this >does not effect the letter's status in this regard. > >End of thread. > >P JHE In that case, I hereby declare a copyright upon this media. From this moment forward, everyone is to send me $1.00 for each time they use the email :-) ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:15:14 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: (last post) Message-ID: In message <9612032009.AA02249@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes > >PA >>The 1900 letter is in the public domain. If someone publishes >>it in any media they may put copyright on the media and this >>does not effect the letter's status in this regard. >> >>End of thread. >> >>P > >JHE >In that case, I hereby declare a copyright upon this media. From >this moment forward, everyone is to send me $1.00 for each time >they use the email :-) AB Reading this e-mail is forbidden. Anyone doing so must send $100 fine to me without delay. 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, 3 Dec 1996 18:37:49 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: A compilation on sex Message-ID: <961203183747_1186006749@emout10.mail.aol.com> Well, the proliferation of birth control has been the single greatest liberating factor the human soul has experienced in a long time. It makes sex magick much less worrisome because it is possible to work strictly with the energies involved without the worry about a magickal child appearing fogging up the concentration. And as far as the broader culture, that group of sane people who know better than to make the same mistake we did and get involved with this spiritual stuff (which seems to cause brain rot in so many people) it allows intimacy without fear and thus the realization that the only real purpose of sex, aside from it's magickal uses, is having fun and if nature doesn't like it, screw it. The constant bombardment of sexual imagery is also a good thing. Aside from the joy of knowing that it drives the pope nuts and probably has poor, crazy Alice Bailey spinning in her urn, it keeps the energy pot stirring and has given us one of the most creative and interesting periods in western history since the Restoration. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 22:42:29 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 745 Message-ID: In message <199612030407.VAA18042@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >Jim writes: > >>The traditional prayer begins, "Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be >Thy >name." The experimental version began "O God in heaven, Mother and >Father of us >all, hallowed be Your name." >> (S. Chambers writing in the Star Ledger) > The English (UK) Book of Common Prayer has "Which art in heaven ..." No-sex father! > 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: 03 Dec 96 20:26:09 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Paradigm shifts - to B Brown Message-ID: <961204012609_74024.3352_BHT62-1@CompuServe.COM> Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net >on the Milleum list which I read but do not really get involved in. I have become acquainted with a web page that features the Datre teachings that are different but quite interesting. As I have been dabbling in these areas for quite some time, I have developed much more discrimination and Datre have left a favourable impression even though it is channeled stuff. They say similar things, just different analogies to try to explain stuff that is not yet part of our intellectual framework. There has been hot disputes over the 'Death Star' and now the guy who 'discovered' it says there was a bug in his software or what ever and he made a mistake. The MMlist have covered this topic extensively and there seems to be doubt about it's existence. Relationship issues are certainly taking a battering and it seems to me that many are checking out of this existence. I am continually confronted with people around me dying with cancer and they are around the 55-70 age group as well as an unusual number of young suicides, whether by car or other means. There have been 16 youth suicides in the last few months and they are still coming. I understand that as a change in the frequencies of the planet and some are not able to hold them or else they have chosen not to be here at the moment. We perhaps need to be aware of the changes and keep an eye on our own reactions so that we can hang in without too much wear and tear. I understand shingles needs rest and recreation :-) so I wish you lot of that. Cheers. > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. < Keith: I think shingle (chicken pox revisited) is due to inner conflinct and unresolved karma as much as any disease so I am taking zovoraz and being as nice as I can to everybody. Thanks for your response. I see that young people are looking and having a harder time than we did maybe, because they have so many options as so little GROUNDING in the basics which we got whether we liked it or not. We rejected fundamentalism, they have hardly been exposed to it except as a joke on TV. Many musicians are upset becomes they change middle A on the piano up so as to make computer synthesizer easier to coordinate and program. I have noticed a certain speeding up in my psyche. But I have recently slowed down and actually started cooking again. I thought everyone lived on Big Macs etc. It seems that home cooking really does include mystical thought forms commonly called LOVE -uumm good! Please e-mail with the address of some of the sites you have felt helpful and I will respond with one or two I like. C'est vous plait, OK? Namaste From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 20:48:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: N Janikiram - Passing Away Message-ID: <32A4E665.20D4@eden.com> I just picked up the following from www.theosophical.org. I had the pleasure of meeting him one time several years ago. One of the lesser known fact about him is the fact that he comes from the traditional "untouchable" castes and it may be recalled that H S Olcott started the first school for "untouchable" children in I believe around 1890. May his soul rest in peace. ===================================== Passed to Peace We regret to announce the passing of Mr. N. Janikiram, Assistant Secretary, on August 24, 1996. He was born in 1923 and was one of the earliest students at the Besant Theosophical School. Later he worked in the Secretariat of the Government of Tamil Nadu, retiring as Deputy Secretary in 1977. During his long years of service to the Theosophical Society at Adyar, he was at various times Assistant Treasurer, Manager of the Vasanta Press, and Secretary of the Olcott Education Society. His continual interest in the Lodges of the Madras Theosophical Federation and the Tamil Districts Federation was a source of strength to the work in these areas. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 21:01:17 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: (last post) Message-ID: <32A4E97D.71C1@eden.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > In message <9612032009.AA02249@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > writes > > > >PA > >>The 1900 letter is in the public domain. If someone publishes > >>it in any media they may put copyright on the media and this > >>does not effect the letter's status in this regard. > >> > >>End of thread. > >> > >>P > > > >JHE > >In that case, I hereby declare a copyright upon this media. From > >this moment forward, everyone is to send me $1.00 for each time > >they use the email :-) > > AB > Reading this e-mail is forbidden. Anyone doing so must send $100 fine > to me without delay. > > Alan > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: > http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ > E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk Alan: It may be a good idea to post your e-money/e-bank address for anyone who wants to send. If anyone needs help in sending money, I can help for a nominal handling fee of $25.00 (which will be used for T/theosophical) purposes and may be tax deductible in the USA. ...doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996 19:06:01 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Theosophy World Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961203061341.00683c0c@mail.deltanet.com> The December issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD has come out. Its table of contents is: > "Time of the Winter Solstice" by Eldon Tucker > "An Invitation to Discussion" > "Postmodernism and Theosophy: A Dialogue With > Jerry Hejka-Ekins" by David Borsos > "Giving and Taking Orders" by Ruben Cabigting > "Seeds" by Dara Eklund > "The Initiations" by Eldon Tucker > "Theosophical Queries" by H. P. Blavatsky > "Signs of Genuine Mystery Schools" by Eldon Tucker > "Love and Sacrifice -- The Cure for Anger and Desire" by > Sri Satya Sai Baba > "Neo-Theosophnik Bongo Art Missive" by Mark Kusek > "Intensification of Karma in Probation" by Eldon Tucker > "Intuition: Our Next Step" by Einar Adalsteinsson > "Euthansia and the Sanctity of Life" by Andrew Rooke The theosophical email monthly is about 100,000 bytes in size. A sample copy or free subscription is available by writing: editor@theosophy.com Articles and other items of theosophical interest are discussed in the associated email list, theos-talk@theosophy.com. Participation in this list is optional; it's ok to receive the magazine without being on theos-talk. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 00:20:15 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: The Russian Doll Message-ID: <961204002014_2083580580@emout08.mail.aol.com> A few years ago one of my students brought in a "Russian doll" she got on a family trip to the Soviet Union. The doll works like this: you open it up and there is a smaller doll inside; you open that up and there is a smaller doll inside of that; you open that up and there is a smaller doll inside of that, etc. . . . Yesterday, I received a post from some who mentioned the need for something to "explicitly promote or present to the public and say 'This is Theosophy.'" The person showed no fear whatever about his ability to handle me should I again go into one of my "big-T-small-t" tirades; thus I am sure many of you can guess who this substantial person was. . . . Anyway, it got me thinking again about what really is the "core philosophy" which should be associated with the Theosophical Society. The convention view, naturally, is that it is HPB's Anthropogenesis and Cosmogenesis. I say no--they are theosophical philosophies, to be sure, but not the core. Why can't I say no on this fundamental issue? The promulgators of the old presumed core philosophy have been trying their best for a long time now, but they haven't exactly had the best of success in interesting very many new people. I say it may be time to change what we call the core philosophy. I say here and now that it might be better to regard the real core philosophy associated with the Theosophical Society as that which can can be symbolized by the Russian doll--i.e., the very special way of looking at the "human soul." HPB's view, I am convinced, is consonant with something like this: first of all, for the soul to be regarded as human at all, it must be some variant of manas consciousness--kama-manas, manas, or Buddhi-manas. Each one not only has special characteristics in and of itself, but it can also operate as the "Once-Removed-Vantage" on the state of consciousness "below" it. Let's say a person has a "Fourth-Degree" soul. What I mean by this is that the person would generally be able to "hold the reins" in most basic kama situations which were ~really~ proscribed by the composition of his or her kama-manas "soul-package" (psyche). For example, if the person's kama-manas sense of I AM was that of a faithful husband, he could usually resist the desire for sex (basic kama) with women other than his wife. He might slip from time to time, temporarily losing the Fourth-Degree soul and thus ~become~ kama consciousness 100% for a short while; however, unless he got to the point where he could no longer hang on to the reins at all in these situations, he would still be a Fourth-Degree soul. However, he would be a Fourth-Degree soul in the process of change: either ~up~ because the negative consequences of his actions would strengthen his current soul-Vantage, enabling him to be more aware in the next situation, or ~down~ because repeated indulgences would gradually degrade the Fourth-Degree Vantage (Fourth-Degree Self-Awareness). All well and good. However, what about a Fourth-Degree soul which confronted the temptation to indulge kama-manas consciousness rather than mere kama consciousness? For example, what if the person was a political conservative who was arguing an abortion issue that he or she had a strong feeling about? The person would undoubtedly ~become~ the argument 100% because there would be no Fifth-Degree soul to mediate that level of consciousness--no little doll inside the bigger one holding the reins. What about a Fifth-Degree soul who was indulging pure manas (mental) consciousness? Similarly, 100% delusion that he or she ~really was~ the logical, dispassionate ideas and mentation he or she was utilizing. No even-littler doll holding. . . . I don't know . . . if we must have something to capitalize and proclaim "This is Theosophy," why not make it the Russian-doll model of "esoteric pyschology"? HPB was Russian, so who knows what inspired her to take an interest in the ~uphadhis~ ("vehicles") etc. in the first place? And indeed, if such a "psychogenetic" perspective became identified with the Theosophical Society, we might have a core philosophy which would attract some attention for a change, mightn't we? In so many words, we would be suggesting the Hierarchy of all Hierachies--that individuals are higher or lower not because of race, gender, age, etc., but BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGHER OR LOWER AS SOULS. "Oh yes," the core philosophy might proclaim, "individuals ARE different just because of their differences in PSYCHOGENETIC DEGREE. The soul of each occupies his or her own special place along the Continuum leading toward perfect Self/Universal-Soul-Awareness . . . but unfortunately the little, penultimate Buddhi-manas doll is the last one that anyone has been able to find and tell about." . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 00:23:00 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 746 Message-ID: <199612040723.AAA23270@snowden.micron.net> Bart wrote: >I would call it "discrimination based solely on gender", myself. Can exploitation and domination be expressed with the word discrimination? Are they not different acts/behaviors? Is sexism only discrimination? Your definition is certainly correct, but I think it to be incomplete. >Note, >however, that the term "Webster's Dictionary" is in the public domain; >ANYBODY can publish a dictionary, and call it "Webster's Dictionary". >The dictionary most people think of when they say "Webster's Dictionary" >is actually MERRIEM-Webster's Dictionary. Other good ones are American >Heritage, Random House, and, of course Oxford. Which one did you use? Does "Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Simon and Schuster" pass muster? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 00:25:14 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Three for the day/Art House Message-ID: <32A5356A.5C69@earthlink.net> so many things a hope in white tara - so many marvels a green eyed hope. why not lift up my heart and sink not any further? old birds fly more gracefully and wisdom doth not turn her head from the stiffer breezes. _______________________ one see her so far up in the clouds, so at a distance, one gasps for breath. the cosmic Lady Yin aspiring and soaring one forgets to look down to the earth far below. ________________________ a thousand vari-colored robes flicker in tranquil moonlight, the court, arrayed in splendor sets the pace for this evening's festival. the palace, giant glowing pearl of lustrous beauty, transcendent in the pine scent of quiet that hushes us by and by ... awaiting the appearance of the many heavenly attendants. green pine moon festival breezy night; golden age. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:16:12 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <19961204101610.AAA23425@LOCALNAME> Bart Lidofsky wrote: >kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >> Sexism is: 'the economic exploitation and social domination of members of >> one sex by the other, specifically of women by men' - Webster's Dictionary. It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is distinct from domination. >> In this world we live in now, it is considered "inferior" to think >> emotionally, whereby those who think logically are considered "superior." >> If someone put two people in front of us, and asked us to choose who we >> would want to lead, or be in authority - whom do you think we would choose >> if we took as law the statement you claim to agree with? I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not regard your question as very difficult, since I would choose a leader who acted as a result of thinking logically over one who acted emotionally without hesitation. That is one reason why men are leaders, since they do this better than women do. I would not want to count on an emotional leader to win a war for me. > Actually, what is needed is a good balance of logic and emotion. They both have their purposes. Emotion is a good source of information. Logic is a tool for determining truth. Being "emotional," though, in the sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to thinking logically, is a typically feminine weakness. >> To say that "men >> are more logical than women and that women are more emotional then men" is, >> and I use this term again, simplistic. And it horribly shortchanges >> individuals and society. This implies that you regard generalizations as having no exceptions, when it is just the opposite. There are all kinds of logical women and emotional men, but that does not make the general statement false. I neither see how it is simplistic nor how it shortchanges anyone. To say that, in general, men and women are exactly as logical and as emotional as each other, as you are implying, does not avoid making generalizations, which seems to be your goal. >> It is this kind of thinking that leads to social >> domination - how many of us have heard a women being dismissed with the >> expression, "She's definitely on the rag!" or "must be PMS!" when she >> strongly voices an opinion. In many cases, it is true. PMS and irrationality are correlated. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:16:16 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Gender Language Message-ID: <19961204101610.AAB23425@LOCALNAME> liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >At least it was Brotherhood 120 years ago, when anybody who was anybody was >a man. Women weren't considered to be very much, they were just beginning to >make a racket to be counted. At that time, when the man was the boss, >everybody thought of our universality as a Brotherhood ... women as well as >men. It was the style of the times. Well, it's not the style anymore. I see no reason to hold on to antiquated language. Even if the idea that certain words have certain effects supposedly entirely due to their sound, I find it hard to believe that this effect is independent of its currently accepted meaning. If the word "Brotherhood" is understood to exclude women, it should be changed. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 10:16:19 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Is There a "Universe?" Message-ID: <19961204101610.AAC23425@LOCALNAME> liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >The idea of "brotherhood" is that everything in the universe is interrelated. This raises a question I have had for a long time. HPB, in "The Secret Doctrine," used the word "universe" in both its singular and its plural form. I do not see how using it in its singular form could refer to anything but a limited space, whereas I think of the "universe" as, like numbers, limitless. If it is, there is no such thing as "the whole universe." The word "universe" might be appropriate in referring to a limited space, such as the space that scientists have discovered, which is somewhere around 10 to 20 billion light years across, but it is a misnomer if it attempts to refer to anything that is both definite and infinite, which is contradictory. I hope to hear from someone who knows some detail about how HPB saw what she called the "universe." I recently read "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," by Ken Wilber, in which he expresses very clearly how there is nothing that is not both a whole and a part, the direct conclusion from which is that there is nothing so vast that it is not part of something more vast, so that there is nothing which could be called "the universe." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Dec 4 08:51:39 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: (last post) Message-ID: <199612041351.IAA16779@envirolink.org> >AB >Reading this e-mail is forbidden. Anyone doing so must send $100 fine >to me without delay. > >Alan Ok. I am now sending you a $100 fine. Please pay the sum to your local cheese factory by December 21, 1996. Thank you. *cackle* --- The Triaist (master word manipulator) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 08:11:13 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Gender Language Message-ID: <32A5A188.7B99@earthlink.net> Jim: >>Personally, I'm in the this-is-no-big-deal category. But since it is so >>important to some, it makes for interesting reading on theos-l. I wish >>there was more thought given to the proper expression of the idea that was >>once universally thought of as "Brotherhood". English sounds are not based >>upon mantric law, as those in Sanskrit alledgedly are, but there may still >>be enough of this "idea:spoken word" connection to warrant careful >>consideration before undertaking changes on words so fundamental to the >>Society. If the point is for "the nucleus" to become universal, then the >>mission statement must express something which is universally admirable. Bee Brown: >I think you have a good point about sounds being based on mantric law. I >suspect that there is still a bit of that in the English language because >much of it has come down from the time when this was known. Also I >understand that words can carry vibrations of various sorts so maybe HPB was >knowledgeable in this area and chose certain ways of expressing the >Theosophical concepts because of their vibrational value. When I read, there >will occur a sentence that suddenly has meaning to me over and above the >rest of the page and I suspect that the vibes represented by those words set >up a similar vibration within my mind and so a sort of recognision takes >place. This could possible be more common with architypal ideas expressed in >sounds that correspond to the vibrations of the symbol. TTT: Mantric laws or not, if one records a session of sounds, even totally cacophonous ones, listen to it again and again, one may find rhythm, music, and comfort in it. Even in classical music, there was a period when cacophonous sounds were the rage in operas and ballets. I think that was around Stravinsky's time. My point is that the word "Brotherhood" was formed during a time when masculine was considered strong, and feminine was considered weak and demure. Just because tradition dictated and we took comfort in tradition, does not mean that it should not be changed. Liesel: >At least it was Brotherhood 120 years ago, when anybody who was anybody was >a man. Women weren't considered to be very much, they were just beginning to >make a racket to be counted. At that time, when the man was the boss, >everybody thought of our universality as a Brotherhood ... women as well as >men. It was the style of the times. Well, it's not the style anymore. I'd >rather think of human "families", to which men & women contribute equally. >But the most important thing is that lots of young people, whom we'd like to >attract to the TS, are completely turned off by that kind of terminology. >They won't even look twice at an organization that says it champions >brotherhood. The latter is my biggest reason for wanting to change it. But I >also protest to calling it brotherhood out of principle, because I am and, >in this life, have always been a sister. TTT: Yay, sister! Tits up, up in the air!!! S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 08:41:13 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: A compilation on sex Message-ID: <32A5A9A2.F6A@earthlink.net> Patrick: >As mentioned in the book, birth control is unnecessary and focusses >us in the wrong direction. The idea is that the sex impulse be used >cyclically and transmuted to higher creativity except as needed for >bringing children into the world. TTT: Gee, since I plan to have only two kids in this lifetime, I need to take up some furious knitting. Bring out the whip cream! Chuck: >Well, the proliferation of birth control has been the single greatest >liberating factor the human soul has experienced in a long time. It makes >sex magick much less worrisome because it is possible to work strictly with >the energies involved without the worry about a magickal child appearing >fogging up the concentration. And as far as the broader culture, that group >of sane people who know better than to make the same mistake we did and get >involved with this spiritual stuff (which seems to cause brain rot in so many >people) it allows intimacy without fear and thus the realization that the >only real purpose of sex, aside from it's magickal uses, is having fun and if >nature doesn't like it, screw it. TTT: Like anything that is in a gray zone, the key is mindfulness. Sure, birth control is necessary for the prevention of unwanted births and for allowing greater intimacy between man and woman. However, the function of sex is for bringing children into the world, and sexual desire exists to push us to do the nasty. Therefore, sexual desire is a secondary factor in nature. Loveless sex and addictive sex are of nothing but purely base nature. It's like eating cake. Do I need cake if I have other nourishment? No. But I gotta have it. It's no sin to eat it. I'd rather take the cake, admire it's creamy texture, think of the hard work and finese involved in making the cake, take a slow bite into the sweet texture, and be thankful that I have such a delicious cake to eat. Of course, whip cream on top would be nice. However, instead of taking a piece of cake, I take a whole cake, or maybe even two or more, and stuff myself silly all day long, without even really pausing to taste it, then I am no longer mindful and I am with an awful belly ache. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:46:02 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 746 Message-ID: <199612041446.JAA18030@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Art House > Subject: Re: A compilation on sex > > Patrick wrote: > > >Also, for those who study A. Bailey's writings, the book "A > >Compilation on Sex" provides a thorough assessment of the issues > >surrounding this subject. > > >From my read, the "compilation" spoke of so many more dimensions and > correspondences to "sex" that took it out of the merely human arena to > the point where it becomes the cosmic "purpose" of the divine itself. No > wonder the mystics call it "bliss!" I've never read the compilation, but have read passages about sex in other of the Bailey books. I agree that it takes sex out of just the human realm and applies it to wherever there is duality that need to be resolved. > The book also stated repeatedly that the "solution to the problem of > sex" would be ... a while in coming (no fun intended!) As so many things will take some time in coming. > > I have a few general questions though: > > What do you think the proliferation of birth control methods has done to > stimulate our cultural attitudes towards sex and what effect do these > attitudes have on our psyche as spiritual aspirants? My first thoughts on the proliferation of birth control have to do with economics and women's freedom. As for the psyche of spiritual aspirants, each would follow their own path according to what they feel is right for them according to their astrological bent. > > How does the near constant presence of sexually stimulating content in > our culture at large affect our ability to perceive ourselves and each > other? Near constant presence? Where have you been surfing on the Net?:-) Seriously, I see two routes here. Join the crowd and enjoy it. Or turn off the television. > From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." > > > What do you think the proliferation of birth control methods has done to > > stimulate our cultural attitudes towards sex and what effect do these > > attitudes have on our psyche as spiritual aspirants? > > As mentioned in the book, birth control is unnecessary and focusses > us in the wrong direction. The idea is that the sex impulse be used > cyclically and transmuted to higher creativity except as needed for > bringing children into the world. > What time frame are we talking here? It's gets very difficult to put these type of statements in perspective without some supportive material. At what level of consciousness would humanity be for this to occur? How many would have taken initiation and which ones? Would the majority of humanity be soul-centered rather than personality centered? I have an idea of what you're saying, but feel there is a time problem. For example, I read some time ago that humans would no longer need to eat, but that they would live off of prana. What a way to save on groceries! Just for arguments sake, if that statement was true, one would need some time frame and supportive evidence about the level of man's consciousness that would allow that to occur. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 13:40:18 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Is there a "universe?" Message-ID: <9612042140.AA18162@toto.csustan.edu> TR >I hope to hear from someone who knows some detail >about how HPB saw what she called the "universe." I recently >read "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," by Ken Wilber, in which he >expresses very clearly how there is nothing that is not both a >whole and a part, the direct conclusion from which is that there >is nothing so vast that it is not part of something more vast, >so that there is nothing which could be called "the universe." JHE When HPB was referring to the physical "universe," she was using the word in the same sense as was used by Kant. That is, she believed that there were numberless island universes. Today, we call them galaxies. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 18:30:31 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Is There a "Universe?" Message-ID: <961204183030_773888449@emout13.mail.aol.com> No. I haven't gotten around to creating it yet. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:46:11 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <19961204101610.AAA23425@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson writes >In many cases, it is true. PMS and irrationality are correlated. In many cases, it is false. PMS and irrationality are not correlated. 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, 5 Dec 1996 01:44:52 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <19961204101610.AAA23425@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson writes >Being "emotional," though, in the >sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to thinking logically, is a >typically feminine weakness. Bullshit. Where are you getting this stuff!!! 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, 5 Dec 1996 01:31:27 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Gender Language Message-ID: In message <19961204101610.AAB23425@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson writes >If the word "Brotherhood" is understood to exclude women, >it should be changed. It is and it should. They won'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: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 01:43:42 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <19961204101610.AAA23425@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson writes >I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. So I see. Time to learn then, eh? 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, 5 Dec 1996 01:42:50 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <19961204101610.AAA23425@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson writes >It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both >physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the >leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is >distinct from domination. Of course, you are personally acquainted with "most women" and they have all told you this? Please explain how it is "natural" and define what you mean by "natural." As a woman friend of mine who read your post said, "How do I screw this sexist bastard into the ground?" She is a black belt Karate teacher, and could dominate most people, though she doesn't - it's against the teaching. 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, 4 Dec 1996 20:08:16 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > >kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > >> Sexism is: 'the economic exploitation and social domination of members of > >> one sex by the other, specifically of women by men' - Webster's Dictionary. > > It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both > physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the > leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is > distinct from domination. > > > >> In this world we live in now, it is considered "inferior" to think > >> emotionally, whereby those who think logically are considered "superior." > >> If someone put two people in front of us, and asked us to choose who we > >> would want to lead, or be in authority - whom do you think we would choose > >> if we took as law the statement you claim to agree with? > > I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not regard > your question as very difficult, since I would choose a leader who acted as > a result of thinking logically over one who acted emotionally without > hesitation. That is one reason why men are leaders, since they do this > better than women do. I would not want to count on an emotional leader to > win a war for me. > > > > Actually, what is needed is a good balance of logic and emotion. > > They both have their purposes. Emotion is a good source of information. > Logic is a tool for determining truth. Being "emotional," though, in the > sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to thinking logically, is a > typically feminine weakness. > > > >> To say that "men > >> are more logical than women and that women are more emotional then men" is, > >> and I use this term again, simplistic. And it horribly shortchanges > >> individuals and society. > > This implies that you regard generalizations as having no exceptions, when > it is just the opposite. There are all kinds of logical women and emotional > men, but that does not make the general statement false. I neither see how > it is simplistic nor how it shortchanges anyone. To say that, in general, > men and women are exactly as logical and as emotional as each other, as you > are implying, does not avoid making generalizations, which seems to be your > goal. > > > >> It is this kind of thinking that leads to social > >> domination - how many of us have heard a women being dismissed with the > >> expression, "She's definitely on the rag!" or "must be PMS!" when she > >> strongly voices an opinion. > > In many cases, it is true. PMS and irrationality are correlated. > > > > > > > So what do you call it when a male acts irrationally? Male Answer Syndrome?? And what's this about female weakness?? Seems to me you have a lot to learn about basic human understanding and acceptance..much less theosophy! Gertrude the Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 16:46:20 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Paradigm shifts - to B Brown Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961205034620.0068bbcc@whanganui.ac.nz> At 09:42 PM 03/12/96 -0500, Bee wrote: >Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net >>on the Milleum list which I read >but do not really get involved in. I have become acquainted with a web page >that features the Datre teachings that are different but quite interesting. >As I have been dabbling in these areas for quite some time, I have developed >much more discrimination and Datre have left a favourable impression even >though it is channeled stuff. They say similar things, just different >analogies to try to explain stuff that is not yet part of our intellectual >framework. >Cheers. >> >Bee Brown >Member Theosophy NZ, TI. >< >Keith: I think shingle (chicken pox revisited) is due to inner conflinct and >unresolved karma as much as any disease so I am taking zovoraz and being as nice >as I can to everybody. Thanks for your response. I see that young people are >looking and having a harder time than we did maybe, because they have so many >options as so little GROUNDING in the basics which we got whether we liked it >or not. We rejected fundamentalism, they have hardly been exposed to it except >as a joke on TV. > >Many musicians are upset becomes they change middle A on the piano up so as to >make computer synthesizer easier to coordinate and program. I have noticed a >certain speeding up in my psyche. But I have recently slowed down and actually >started cooking again. I thought everyone lived on Big Macs etc. It seems that >home cooking really does include mystical thought forms commonly called LOVE >-uumm good! > >Please e-mail with the address of some of the sites you have felt helpful and I >will respond with one or two I like. C'est vous plait, OK? > >Namaste > I have a zipped file with about 34 Datre files in and they are very interesting. If it suits you I could send them privately to you as an attachment. I keep dipping in there for a quick read and find statements that ring some bells. I have come to the conclusion that if some info from somewhere rings a bell then it is worth thinking about even if it comes from a 'strange quarter'. The quarter is only an evaluation we make as to whether it seems legit or not, to us or to the people we are interacting with. I potter about in all sorts of quarters and have learned many interesting things but some just fade away as they are replaced or no longer relevant to the experience of living. Some become part of my way of relating to the world and that is the reason for pottering around in the first place. Datre text 11 is about comprehending what we experience, read etc rather than remembering it as we cannot 'know' without comprehension. It also talks about reading between the lines and that really did a take as I have done that for years without really quite knowing why. Not strictly Theos but I have no arguements between the two. Cheers. > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:58:17 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: (last post) Message-ID: Sending $100 Monopoly money!> > >AB > >Reading this e-mail is forbidden. Anyone doing so must send $100 fine > >to me without delay. > > > >Alan > > Ok. I am now sending you a $100 fine. Please pay the sum to your local > cheese factory by December 21, 1996. Thank you. > > *cackle* > --- > The Triaist (master word manipulator) > > > -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 23:30:35 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 746 Message-ID: <32A64FEB.7F1C@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Bart wrote: > > >I would call it "discrimination based solely on gender", myself. > > Can exploitation and domination be expressed with the word discrimination? > Are they not different acts/behaviors? Is sexism only discrimination? Your > definition is certainly correct, but I think it to be incomplete. A sexist attitude might cause one to exploit and dominate, but I do not consider it to be part of the definition. > >however, that the term "Webster's Dictionary" is in the public domain; > >ANYBODY can publish a dictionary, and call it "Webster's Dictionary". > >The dictionary most people think of when they say "Webster's Dictionary" > >is actually MERRIEM-Webster's Dictionary. Other good ones are American > >Heritage, Random House, and, of course Oxford. Which one did you use? > > Does "Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Simon and > Schuster" pass muster? Actually, as one who worked a decade in the library reference book industry, I would say no, that is not considered to be a definitive dictionary of the English language. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 23:39:25 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <32A651FD.4A3B@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both > physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the > leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is > distinct from domination. > > >> In this world we live in now, it is considered "inferior" to think > >> emotionally, whereby those who think logically are considered "superior." > >> If someone put two people in front of us, and asked us to choose who we > >> would want to lead, or be in authority - whom do you think we would choose > >> if we took as law the statement you claim to agree with? > > I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not regard > your question as very difficult, since I would choose a leader who acted as > a result of thinking logically over one who acted emotionally without > hesitation. That is one reason why men are leaders, since they do this > better than women do. I would not want to count on an emotional leader to > win a war for me. > > > Actually, what is needed is a good balance of logic and emotion. > > They both have their purposes. Emotion is a good source of information. > Logic is a tool for determining truth. Being "emotional," though, in the > sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to thinking logically, is a > typically feminine weakness. Annie Besant wrote that all who believe in the Brotherhood of Humanity belong in the Theosophical Society, and those who do not believe are still our brothers (in a genderless sense, of course). Mr. Robertson is my brother, but I believe that he clearly demonstrates his disagreement with the 3 Objects, in any of the methods of stating them, in his message. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 23:45:48 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Sexual Slavery - A Quote Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961205054548.00681fc8@mail.eden.com> Hi Here is an excerpt from "The Paradoxes of the Highest Science" by Eliphas Levi in which there were footnotes by E.O. I think it may interest some here in light of all the discussion we had on Sex etc. "Woman's mission is to become the mother of future occultists -- of those who will be born without sin. On the elevation of of woman the world's redemption and salvation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ hinge. And not till woman bursts the bonds of her sexual slavery, to which she has ever ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ been subjected, will the world obtain an inkling of what she really is and her proper ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ place in the economy of nature. Old India, the India of the Rishis, made the first ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ sounding with her plummet line in this ocean of Truth, but the post Mahabharatean India, with all her profundity of learning, has neglected and forgotten it. "The light that will come to it and to the world at large, when the latter shall discover and really appreciate the truths that underlie this vast problem of sex, will be like 'the light that never shone on sea or land,' and has to come to men through the Theosophical Society. That light will lead on and up to the "true spiritual intuition." Then the world wil have discovered that individuals 'have it in their own power' to procreate Buddha-like children or -- demons. When that knowledge comes, all dogmatic religions, with these the demons, will die out." MKR: One of the strongest statements I have seen in a publication of TS on the issue of Sex. I think there is something to think about. MK Ramadoss PS: The ^^^^^^^ marks are mine. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 00:34:31 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612050734.AAA02620@snowden.micron.net> Tom honked: >It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both >physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the >leaders. HO! HO! HA! HO! HA! HO! HA! WOO-HOO!! >I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not regard >your question as very difficult, I think you do, and it wasn't supposed to be. >I would not want to count on an emotional leader to win a war for me. We have for centuries (you know, that me-first, anger stuff, I have a bigger u-know-what). . .I'm sick of it, too. Let's give the ladies a try. >Being "emotional," though, in the sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to >thinking logically, is a typically feminine weakness. I take it you've recently been dumped. . .? >This implies that you regard generalizations as having no exceptions, when >it is just the opposite. There are all kinds of logical women and emotional >men, but that does not make the general statement false. I neither see how >it is simplistic nor how it shortchanges anyone. To say that, in general, >men and women are exactly as logical and as emotional as each other, as you >are implying, does not avoid making generalizations, which seems to be your >goal. I'm implying exactly? Thanks for the news flash. Let me repeat: men and women are capable of both types of thinking. No, I'm against the discriminatory, exploitative, "negative" generalizations. Generalizations that all people are intrinsically good, or all people are equal in their humanity, or men and women are capable of both types of thinking are, to me, "positive" generalizations. >In many cases, it is true. PMS and irrationality are correlated. PMS is also cited in murder cases, which leads us to the assumption, following your example of course - PMS and murder are correlated. If that is true, Tom, I suspect you speak more softly around the women you may encounter, save this garbage for your belching buddies. No, Tom, less and less people are willing to take this kind of ignorant crap. It has caused untold suffering, pain, and division. Men and women who think like this have 'led' this world straight into the dung heap too many times for this sufferer of PMS. Not all of us are for learning the same lessons over and over again. Nor are some of us willing to keep our mouths shut anymore - we're learning to yell as loud as those who have ruled the world for so long. Took some of us awhile, but the day is dawning. Theosophists who speak as you do, and there are many, blacken the name of T/theosophy. You know, the goal of theosophy is Compassion - oh yes! that illogical, emotional, sappy concept. What Tom-foolery have we here?! Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 5 03:36:27 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612050836.DAA29658@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <19961204101610.AAA23425@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson > writes >>Being "emotional," though, in the >>sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to thinking logically, is a >>typically feminine weakness. > >Bullshit. Where are you getting this stuff!!! > >AB Sounds like Vulcan philosophy to me. (No. I'm not a trekky, just an innocent bystander. Well, bystander anyhow.) However, seriously, I'm looking into the PMS/irrationality thing. I know I've seen that somewhere...(I'm NOT, as of now, saying it is true.) Besides, if emotion is a weakness, it's a HUMAN weakness. But then again, men are considered insensitive, so where does that leave us (men)? mwahaha...:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 05:46:25 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Is There a "Universe? Message-ID: <32A6D09E.58DA@earthlink.net> Tom Robertson wrote: >I hope to hear from someone who knows some detail >about how HPB saw what she called the "universe." Right off the bat in the Secret Doctrine, Vol 1, page 13 you find this: The reader has to bear in mind that the Stanzas given treat only of the Cosmogony of our own planetary system and what is visible around it, after a Solar Pralaya. The secret teachings with regard to the Evolution of the Universal Kosmos cannot be given, since they could not be understood by the highest minds in this age, and there seem to be very few Initiates, even amongst the greatest, who are allowed to speculate upon this subject. Moreover the Teachers say openly that not even the highest Dhyani-Chohans have ever penetrated the mysteries beyond those boundaries that separate the milliards of Solar systems from the "Central Sun," as it is called. Therefore, that which is given relates only to our visible Kosmos, after a "Night of Brahma." The terms "universe" and "Kosmos" do seem to get tossed around in the literature a lot and used to refer to both solar and galactic systems. Inferences about super-galactic or "larger" systems are by analogy, until the whole thing slips through your mental fingers and you find yourself running to the books again! There is no cause for trouble for no longer is there anyone here but the one and even the one is gone Mountains and valleys in perfect accord compliment each other quite naturally These are all assessments of size, albeit really big sizes. (And we all know size doesn't matter!) Try as you might, you just can't wrap a thought around that which can't be measured. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:47:14 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: The Russian Doll Message-ID: <19961205134707.AAC7232@LOCALNAME> Richard Ihle wrote: >"Oh yes," the core philosophy might proclaim, "individuals ARE different just >because of their differences in PSYCHOGENETIC DEGREE. The soul of each >occupies his or her own special place along the Continuum leading toward >perfect Self/Universal-Soul-Awareness . . . but unfortunately the little, >penultimate Buddhi-manas doll is the last one that anyone has been able to >find and tell about." . . . This makes me think of one of the main points in Ken Wilber's "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality," which is that there is nothing that is not both a whole and a part, implying an infinite hierarchy, which assumes that the principle can be applied infinitely in both directions. Theosophy's stress of consistency of principle is my greatest attraction to it, so that all of this makes sense to me. It implies that there are no concrete ultimates, such as a personal God or a whole universe, and that there is no final development of any individual, but that the seeking of a balance between growth and rest in an upward spiral is eternal. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:47:17 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Numberless Universes Message-ID: <19961205134707.AAD7232@LOCALNAME> Jerry wrote: >When HPB was referring to the physical "universe," she was using >the word in the same sense as was used by Kant. That is, she >believed that there were numberless island universes. Today, we >call them galaxies. I am glad to hear this, since the alternative view implied by her ideas of universal (taken literally) manvantaras and pralayas applies what I believe to be a universal principle inconsistently. The idea that everything is part of something greater implies that there is no ultimate whole, but that, infinitely higher and infinitely lower, the same cyclic principle applies. It makes much more sense if "universal" manvantaras and pralayas are regarded as applying to something definite and limited. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:47:20 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Male Domination Message-ID: <19961205134707.AAE7232@LOCALNAME> "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >In message <19961204101610.AAA23425@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson > writes >>It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both >>physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the >>leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is >>distinct from domination. >Of course, you are personally acquainted with "most women" and they have >all told you this? Please explain how it is "natural" and define what >you mean by "natural." As a woman friend of mine who read your post >said, "How do I screw this sexist bastard into the ground?" She is a >black belt Karate teacher, and could dominate most people, though she >doesn't - it's against the teaching. Masculinity is active and dominant. Femininity is passive and submissive. All individuals are mixtures of the two. Men are generally predominantly masculine, and women are generally predominantly feminine. Since men are more masculine than women, they naturally take the initiative and dominate more than women do. You have responded in a predominantly feminine way, not only in how emotional as opposed to rational it was, but also in that you emphasize diversity and uniqueness more than you do universality and similarities, an approach that discourages, if not condemns, generalizations in the name of opposing prejudice, not realizing how prone to prejudice _it_ is. You imply that sexism is the belief that men and women are not identical. If that is its definition, then I hope I am considered to be sexist, since that would mean that I have been understood. Assuming that men and women are not identical, then it directly follows that, in many ways, if not every way, one is better than the other. I assume they are equal overall, but many generalities could be made about specific ways in which they are unequal. Men are stronger than women. Women are more compassionate than men. That there are exceptions to these rules hardly invalidates them, as I wrote in the post to which you responded. I do not have to be personally acquainted with most women to see general tendencies, nor would they all have to have told me anything. A high degree of accuracy can be gained from small samples. It can be mathematically demonstrated, for example, that a random poll of 1000 people or so gives a reasonably accurate view of what 260 million people think. I would be surprised if anyone would contest the idea that, in most marriages, the man is more of a leader than the woman is, a condition that they both want. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 06:45:37 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: Sex, birth control and all the rest of it Message-ID: <32A6DFFF.63BF@earthlink.net> Ann Wrote: My first thoughts on the proliferation of birth control have to do with economics and women's freedom. As for the psyche of spiritual aspirants, each would follow their own path according to what they feel is right for them according to their astrological bent. > > How does the near constant presence of sexually stimulating content in > our culture at large affect our ability to perceive ourselves and each > other? Near constant presence? Where have you been surfing on the Net?:-) Seriously, I see two routes here. Join the crowd and enjoy it. Or turn off the television. ******** - What I'm trying to get at is the idea that birth control has tipped the balance of the natural consequences of sex to the point where we CAN developed cultural attitudes that concentrate more on the pleasure of sex than the children from sex. I'm not saying this is bad or good. I'm just wondering what effect this might have vis a vis spirituality in the culture at large. HPB didn't, couldn't have spoken directly to this issue. Does it help raise us up, spiritualize sex, set up tensions that draw our energies down and out, involve us more in personality life than spiritual life, etc? I'm just fishing ... The same goes for the presence of images in the culture at large that seem to reinforce an emphatically sexual, personality orientation toward identity rather. Watch TV for an hour, read just about any magazine. You don't get a preponderance of uplifting images of humanity (unless you watch talk shows!). You have to do mental gymnastics to spiritualize even a little of what hits your eye every day. Before you know it your buried in the mass miasma and have to trudge yourself up the ladder of identity again. Sure you can just relax and enjoy it, but what effect does that have on your progress if your habit is to cease the spiritualizing effort? We need to accept and realize our humanity: participate in it fully. But the image that Theosophy presents of human identity is a lot more robust than that of merely being sexy personalities. Of course, maybe I'm just incredibly sexy and afraid to accept it. Yeah, that's it. I'm just nuts. Please disregard this post! Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 08:46:24 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <32A6FC3D.6338@earthlink.net> Tom Robertson: >It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both >physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the >leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is >distinct from domination. >I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not regard >your question as very difficult, since I would choose a leader who acted as >a result of thinking logically over one who acted emotionally without >hesitation. That is one reason why men are leaders, since they do this >better than women do. I would not want to count on an emotional leader to >win a war for me. >They both have their purposes. Emotion is a good source of information. >Logic is a tool for determining truth. Being "emotional," though, in the >sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to thinking logically, is a >typically feminine weakness. Emotion is also a tool for determining truth, and logic is a good source of information. There are people who think that they are acting logically, that A+B always equals C. They act without hesitation because there can be no gray zone. Using emotion does not mean that one acts without hesitation. One can use emotion to FEEL over time the situation, and act accordingly. Some parts of emotion are love, instinct, guilt and compassion. I would not want a leader who acts without those emotions being strong influences. These influences counteract such base nature as being power hungry ("domination"), being INSENSITIVE, and being inflexible to the detriment of the situation. Sure, in history, men are often leaders, and true, men are usually physically stronger. Being physically stronger does not indicate a strong leader, except maybe in caveman days where order is done by knocking others over the head with a club. One can be a great leader from a wheelchair. As far as the history of men as leaders, they include Hitler, Genghis Khan, Saddam Husein, etc., etc. Also, as far as the men in my life, most of them have their times, occurring at least once a month, in which they become totally cranky, irrational, and moody. I tell them that they must have PMS. Logically, this tells me that it's possible that men are developing ovaries since "PMS and irrationality are connected" (Some cases of PMS U Some cases of irrationality = possibility men are developing ovaries). I did saw in the National Equirer headline at my local grocery store that there was a case of a man who gave birth. This must be true! In history, many wars, killing and torture have occurred because of the need for domination and territorial rights over one group or another. This was rooted from the animal need for survival. I would hope that we can evolve beyond that, realize that all souls are related to us, and have leaders who would use love as their guide. What good is "volition" if you can't use your will in a compassionate way? P.S. (In an emotional way) Alan, I love, love you! TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 20:06:25 -0800 From: Mika Perala Subject: Re: gender language Message-ID: <32A79BC1.7346@dlc.fi> Jim wrote: > > Personally, I'm in the this-is-no-big-deal category. But since it is so > important to some, it makes for interesting reading on theos-l. I wish > there was more thought given to the proper expression of the idea that was > once universally thought of as "Brotherhood". English sounds are not based > upon mantric law, as those in Sanskrit alledgedly are, but there may still > be enough of this "idea:spoken word" connection to warrant careful > consideration before undertaking changes on words so fundamental to the > Society. If the point is for "the nucleus" to become universal, then the > mission statement must express something which is universally admirable. > > A question: when "Brotherhood" (as a gender neutral idea such as was > envisioned by the TS founders) is translated into other languages, does the > idea still take a masculine form? > > Jim > In finnish the word "veli" means brother and "veljeys" is brotherhood so it is very masculine. Mika From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 15:54:00 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612052103.QAA11460@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both >physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the >leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is >distinct from domination. > > Woever said that, put your duds up & come out fighting! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 16:05:31 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612052115.QAA13209@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not regard >your question as very difficult, since I would choose a leader who acted as >a result of thinking logically over one who acted emotionally without >hesitation. That is one reason why men are leaders, since they do this >better than women do. I would not want to count on an emotional leader to >win a war for me. > methinks I discern some emotional overtones?! Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 16:05:36 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Is there a universe Message-ID: <199612052115.QAA13219@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Tom Robertson, As far as I remember the logic goes something like this: To us, from our point of view, the universe we live in is infinite. In the entire scheme of things it seems that there are countless other universes. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 17:21:35 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Sexual Desire Message-ID: <32A74AEF.26F5@worldnet.att.net> > However, the function of sex is for bringing children into the world, >and sexual desire exists to push us to do the nasty. Therefore, sexual >desire is a secondary factor in nature. Have you ever considered the possibility that "sexual desire" is the physical manifestation of our spiritual thirst for wholeness? Looked at this way, it is primary, not secondary. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire per se. The important thing is how we go about fulfilling that desire. It is no accident that samadhi and spiritual peak experiences are often equated with orgasmic ecstasy. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:13:38 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: A compilation on sex Message-ID: <961205191335_1952608275@emout19.mail.aol.com> Oh, sex is much better than cake and the baser the better. I've been doing it for 31 years and I have yet to have a belly ache from too much. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:01:55 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message , CDGertrude writes >> In many cases, it is true. PMS and irrationality are correlated. > >So what do you call it when a male acts irrationally? Male Answer Syndrome?? Male Irrational Sense Syndrome (MISS). >And what's this about female weakness?? >Seems to me you have a lot to learn about basic human understanding and >acceptance..much less theosophy! >Gertrude the Churchmouse >-- Seconded, thirded, fourthed .... 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, 5 Dec 1996 20:14:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <32A6FC3D.6338@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >P.S. (In an emotional way) Alan, I love, love you! Blush. 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, 05 Dec 1996 15:33:25 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Three for the day/ArtHouse Message-ID: <32A75A7D.24A0@earthlink.net> what can I hold in my heart but love, for the pure children of old who with freshness and devotion sparked the shores of this world ... and who by coming, fullfilled life's own desiring? ________________________ remain by changing change by remaining this is secret mystery this is plain fact truth aum tai chi aum delicate as a rose enduring as a mountain rooted as a flowering tree in the firmity of the one both source and center return now to thyself, and there repose in the silent sound, the active stillness of great origin. ________________________ softly now the birds rest on a firm supportive branch man reads in the stillness scripture without words. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:09:37 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Male Domination Message-ID: In message <19961205134707.AAE7232@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson writes >You have responded in a predominantly feminine way Simper. (Your dinner's in the dog). 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, 5 Dec 1996 20:06:06 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Emotion Message-ID: In message <199612050836.DAA29658@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes > Besides, if >emotion is a weakness, it's a HUMAN weakness. The key word here is "IF". What is it that motivates people to *do* things? The clear cool rational and intellectual analysis of the situation? Up to a point, but until they get all "fired up" (emotional) about it, zilch happens. People act when they CARE, not when they reason. Emotion is a great stength - we just have to careful how we use 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: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 20:29:08 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <9j$pLeAUCzpyEwMP@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199612050734.AAA02620@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >What Tom-foolery have we here?! I love it! (Love is a form of emotion despised by the arrogant. Arrogance is another form of emotion, often employed by those who believe it is their role to dominate - an emotional attitude which could be said to rest upon a false sense of superiority, blather, blah, etc.. ad inf. and naus. and so 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: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 19:51:30 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Is There a "Universe?" Message-ID: In message <961204183030_773888449@emout13.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >No. I haven't gotten around to creating it yet. > >Chuck the Heretic I have. That's how you are able to post your message. God (Ms.) --------- 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, 5 Dec 1996 21:32:59 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Is There a "Universe?" Message-ID: <961205213258_1785698322@emout12.mail.aol.com> That's very nice of you. Now can you do something about uncreating kidney stones and lumbago (I haven't got that yet, but with my luck...). Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:22:36 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: The [Revised] Russian Doll Message-ID: <961205232235_1588246609@emout20.mail.aol.com> [Please delete the previous version of the following. Thanks.] A few years ago one of my students brought in a "Russian doll" she got on a family trip to the Soviet Union. The doll works like this: you open it up and there is a smaller doll inside; you open that up and there is a smaller doll inside of that; you open that up and there is a smaller doll inside of that, etc. . . . Yesterday, I received a post from some who mentioned the need for something to "explicitly promote or present to the public and say 'This is Theosophy.'" The person showed no lack of confidence whatever about his ability to handle me should I again go into one of my "big-T-small-t" tirades; thus I am sure many of you can guess who this substantial person was. . . . Anyway, it got me thinking again about what "core philosophy" really should be most closely associated with the Theosophical Society. The popular view, naturally, is that it should be the literal version of HPB's Anthropogenesis and Cosmogenesis. I say ~maybe not~. Maybe not everything HPB said about Anthropogenesis and Cosmogenesis was meant to be taken ~literally~. In particular, it seems to me that much of what she said about Rounds, Root-Races etc. may almost be a little ~too~ perfect as a ~figurative~ representation of the "psychomaturation" and then further development of the human psyche ("soul") to also be intended as an inerrant, straight-forward explanation of an exact "esoteric physical anthropology" as well. If a growing number of deeper-thinking Christian theologians can find truths about human nature in the Adam and Eve story without shying away from the word ~myth~, perhaps there are even some theosophists who can entertain the idea that some parts of HPB's Anthropogenesis and Cosmogenesis were simply intended to convey in veiled form some of the hidden mechanisms of "Psychogenesis"--the "birth" of progressively more "viable" forms of the psyche. But of course in many places HPB is not figurative on this subject at all. It is difficult to patch together, but I am convinced that her view of the soul may at least be generally consonant with something like this: for the soul to be regarded as being at the "human level" at all, it must involve the ability to remain "Self-aware" at least until it reaches some level of manas consciousness--kama-manas, manas, or Buddhi-manas. Strictly speaking, these states of consciousness are not "souls" themselves; rather, they merely indicate the upper levels of the ever-more rarefied strata of "Substance" (Prakriti) which can still be partially "en-souled" by the Self (Purusa, Undifferentiated Consciousness, Ultimate I AM), thereby giving rise to their own types of "egoic delusions," of course. Strictly speaking, a soul always remains Soul and has no qualities other than a possible sense of itSelf. It can, perhaps in the very highest individuals, act as a "Once-Removed Vantage" on the animating, physical, desire-feeling, desire-mental, mental, and Spiritual-mental nature that it may be partially "in association with" at any given moment. The problem, of course, is that the more rarefied the state of consciousness, the more difficult it is to keep a Once-Removed-Vantage upon it--i.e., the harder to stay "Self-aware." The "Degree" of the soul may be thought of as the level at which a person completely merges with the gradient of consciousness he or she is utilizing. The lowest "human" soul (as HPB seems to imply and which I call the "Fourth-Degree" because it can still have a sense of itSelf vis-a-vis any of the first three levels of consciousness), would be one which could maintain a Vantage on animating, physical, and desire states of consciousness but lose the "Silent Watcher" function as it ~became~ the like/dislike/emotion-tainted thoughts, ideas, etc. of the desire-mental level. Let's say a person has such a so-called Fourth-Degree soul. Again, this would mean that the person ~could~ "hold the reins" in most basic kama (desire) situations. He or she would be able to do this because the Once-Removed-Vantage, which although "missing" when 100% "contaminated" by desire-mental consciousness, would SUDDENLY RE-APPEAR because it cannot so easily be 100% contaminated by simple (non-ideational-related) desire. Naturally, the person could still indulge the desire and for a while perhaps even lose the Once-Removed-Vantage on the third-level type of consciousness. It would return soon enough, of course, and often as a very acute Witness indeed on any third-level or lower consequences of the indulgent actions. "Existential pain," some people might call it; "lessons of incarnation," other people might say. But this, at least, would be a Fourth-Degree soul in the process of change: either ~up~ because Self-awareness might be improved when a similar temptation presented itself in the future, or ~down~ because repeated indulgences might gradually degrade the Fourth-Degree Self-Awareness--especially if even more gross indulgences (e.g., alcohol or drugs) were regularly used to "mask" any unpleasant consequences. All well and good. We have just discovered a little doll which can apparently EN-SOUL--"imbue with a soul"--Third-Level consciousness. For example, if a momentary, third-level "semi-Self" like "~I AM~ my desire to go to bed with my neighbor's wife," is created, it is no longer a 100% Self-deluding creation; there is also an "untransformed modicum" of heightened Self-awareness now present to monitor and perhaps mediate the internal event. But to repeat for emphasis: What about a Fourth-Degree soul confronting the temptation to indulge kama-manas consciousness rather than mere kama consciousness? For example, what if it were the soul of a political conservative who was arguing an abortion issue he or she had a strong feeling about? Answer: the person would undoubtedly ~become 100%~ the ideas etc. he or she was espousing because there would be no Fifth-Degree soul to be the Once-Removed-Vantage for that level of consciousness. In other words, no even-littler doll to imbue the Fourth Level consciousness with a soul. What about a Fifth-Degree soul who was indulging pure manas (mental) consciousness? Similarly, a 100% delusion that he or she ~really was~ the logical, dispassionate ideas and mentation he or she was utilizing. No even-littler-littler doll. . . . I don't know . . . if we must have something to capitalize and proclaim "This is Theosophy," why not make it the Russian-doll model of "esoteric psychology"? HPB was Russian, so who knows what inspired her to take an interest in the ~uphadhis~ ("vehicles") etc. in the first place? And indeed, if such a "Psychogenetic" perspective became identified with the Theosophical Society, we might have a core philosophy which would attract some attention for a change, mightn't we? In so many words, we would be suggesting the Hierarchy of all Hierachies--the possibility that individuals are higher or lower NOT because of I.Q., race, gender, age, etc., but BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGHER OR LOWER AS SOULS IN PROGRESS. "Oh yes," the core philosophy might proclaim, "individuals ARE different, but the only really important difference is in their PSYCHOGENETIC DEGREE. The soul of each occupies his or her own special position along the Continuum leading toward perfect Self/Universal-Soul-Awareness . . . but unfortunately the little, penultimate Buddhi-manas doll is the last one that anyone has been able to find and thus we can't really speak with so much authority about the exact Nature of What en-souls ~it~." . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 21:50:39 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Sexual Slavery - A Quote Message-ID: <199612060450.VAA27473@snowden.micron.net> Ramadoss offered this quote: >Here is an excerpt from "The Paradoxes of the Highest Science" by Eliphas >Levi in which there were footnotes by E.O. > > "Woman's mission is to become the mother of future occultists -- of those >who will be born without sin. On the elevation of of woman the world's >redemption and salvation hinge. And not till woman bursts the bonds of her >sexual slavery, to which she has ever been subjected, will the world obtain an >inkling of what she really is and her proper place in the economy of nature. Old >India, the India of the Rishis, made the first sounding with her plummet line in >this ocean of Truth, but the post Mahabharatean India, with all her profundity >of learning, has neglected and forgotten it. Message?: 1. A woman's role is to be a mother. 2. A woman is to "burst the bonds of her sexual slavery" by her and the world's recognition that sex is for procreation only. A call for adoption of the "Madonna complex?" At first, I liked the "burst the bonds of her sexual slavery, to which she has ever been subjected," but upon closer examination I think it is saying what I concluded above. Yes? No? > "The light that will come to it and to the world at large, when the >latter shall discover and really appreciate the truths that underlie this >vast problem of sex, will be like 'the light that never shone on sea or >land,' and has to come to men through the Theosophical Society. That light >will lead on and up to the "true spiritual intuition." Then the world wil >have discovered that individuals 'have it in their own power' to procreate >Buddha-like children or -- demons. When that knowledge comes, all dogmatic >religions, with these the demons, will die out." This too is implying that sex is only for procreation. And the "purer" the sex, the more Buddha-like children???? By the way, what's a demon as stated here? Having said that, what's a Buddha-like child? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 19:23:45 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Numberless Universes Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961206062345.0069ade0@whanganui.ac.nz> At 08:50 AM 05/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >Jerry wrote: > >>When HPB was referring to the physical "universe," she was using >>the word in the same sense as was used by Kant. That is, she >>believed that there were numberless island universes. Today, we >>call them galaxies. > >I am glad to hear this, since the alternative view implied by her ideas of >universal (taken literally) manvantaras and pralayas applies what I believe >to be a universal principle inconsistently. The idea that everything is >part of something greater implies that there is no ultimate whole, but that, >infinitely higher and infinitely lower, the same cyclic principle applies. >It makes much more sense if "universal" manvantaras and pralayas are >regarded as applying to something definite and limited. > Here is an interesting snippet from the general semantic list that may suit this thread. Bee > Subject: Copy of: Re: Infinity and the mind > From: Milton L. Dawes, 102362,1465 > TO: (Unknown), Internet:nonserv@math.uio.no > DATE: 12/5/96 9:32 AM Hi Abstractors This is based on my present understanding of my studies in general-semantics. I don't talk of ''infinite entities" but of "infinite processes." Based on that proposition, I accept that an infinite number does not exist. By a process of addition I can arrive at another number. Similarly there is no end (theoretically) to our ability to ' talk', (add to this: 'think' write, imagine, philosophize, etc.) and talk about what we have said, and talk about this ad infinitum. And there is no end (theoretically) to our ability to "abstract" (make selections, assign meanings, values, etc) ., to our experiences. Now here is a twist. If we accept that "everything is related"; "that nothing exists in isolation", then anything in that sense can be considered an ''infinite process''. It then becomes a problem of "where *** we decide****to put limits, boundaries" etc.; how **** we decide**** to define anything -operationally or statically.. For instance: Do we define a chair in terms of what we see before us? Do we exclude its connections to the floor, to the manufacturers, to the designers, the transporters, the sellers, advertisers, buyers, and so on? And whose definition of "idea", or 'egoist', or ' pornography' , or 'truth' , justice, 'beauty' , etc., is the 'right' one? And how do we decide what we mean by ''right''? As mentioned, there seems to be no theoretical end to these puzzles. A great deal of our problems in understanding ourselves, and others, can be attributed to the factor that "we do not explicitly include ourselves in our pronouncements". We make claims, but usually forget that we are not just talking about the world, or things, or whatever, we are also **** talking about some of the ways we experience***** these processes. Students of g-s (as students) make the effort to include themselves in their propositions. This is usually done through being aware of themselves as "abstractors", map makers, formulators, etc. And by reinforcing this and by advertising this to themselvs and others, with terms such as "to me", "in my opinion", "according to my present understanding", "as I have interpreted", and so on. We create language. But our language oftens adds to our confusion when we do not remember that whatever else we 'think' we are 'talking' about, we are also talking about ourselves. WE invent words like "idea", ''soul', ''spirit'' and then spend endless hours discussing what we mean, and what an idea "is". And what is the ''soul'', etc. The gods must be laughing. That's part of my present abstractions. I do not say any of it is so. Milton > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:40:11 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: A compilation on sex Message-ID: > > Oh, sex is much better than cake and the baser the better. I've been doing > it for 31 years and I have yet to have a belly ache from too much. > > Chuck the Heretic > I didn't realise that you had become sexually active in utero. Smiling Gertrude the Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:44:31 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: > > >I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not regard > >your question as very difficult, since I would choose a leader who acted as > >a result of thinking logically over one who acted emotionally without > >hesitation. That is one reason why men are leaders, since they do this > >better than women do. I would not want to count on an emotional leader to > >win a war for me. > > > methinks I discern some emotional overtones?! > > Liesel > > > And isn't the act of war irrational in and of itself? Thus, so-called war leaders are obviously "emotionally" driven. Otherwise, they would be cold-blooded, calculated killers. Gertrude the Pacifistic Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 07:59:59 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612061400.JAA19073@beasley> Tom Robertson wrote: > It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both > physically and volitional. Most women want this, preferring men to be the > leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is > distinct from domination. This attitude seems to me to have more to do with a need to dominate, to take control of someone in your life because one is basically afraid of the othe person and the possibility that one may lose them. My personal observation is that men are afraid of women because women have so much power over males. They can arouse desire in males, causing the males to lose control as their hormones take over. The other is a discovery of emotion within the male, as he begins to have overpowering feelings for a female. To a group of males who have been taught to hold back emotion and be logically in control at all times, it has got to be difficult to be overtaken with emotion for a female and realize that person has the power to hurt you by rejection or in other ways. So the feared object must be controlled. The best thing I ever read on this subject was from some Bailey material that I read on the public transit. Logical males are striving to get more emotional. Emotional women are striving to get more logical. In the end, we are all striving for balance. -Ann E. Bermingham BTW, the last digest, as well some other mail, didn't make it to my mailbox, so I've missed some things. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:04:05 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Who is the True Theosophist? Message-ID: <19961206160402.AAA28899@LOCALNAME> Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Annie Besant wrote that all who believe in the Brotherhood of Humanity >belong in the Theosophical Society, and those who do not believe are >still our brothers (in a genderless sense, of course). Mr. Robertson is >my brother, but I believe that he clearly demonstrates his disagreement >with the 3 Objects, in any of the methods of stating them, in his >message. I fail to see how forming a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color, means that one must consider men and women to be identical. I would say just the opposite, since masculine and feminine are examples of Yin and Yang, which are literally as different as are night and day. As for the second and third objects, which deal with encouraging study and investigating laws of nature, how does seeing differences between men and women discourage that? The motto of the Theosophical Society is not "there is no religion higher than homogeneity." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:04:08 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Women's Mission Message-ID: <19961206160402.AAB28899@LOCALNAME> M K Ramadoss wrote: >Hi > >Here is an excerpt from "The Paradoxes of the Highest Science" by Eliphas >Levi in which there were footnotes by E.O. I think it may interest some here >in light of all the discussion we had on Sex etc. > > "Woman's mission is to become the mother of future occultists -- of those >who will be born without sin. On the elevation of of woman the world's >redemption and salvation hinge. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This reminds me of what a conservative talk show host (certainly not a Theosophist) included in what he called his essential truths: that women are primarily responsible for the civilizing of humanity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:04:11 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <19961206160402.AAC28899@LOCALNAME> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Tom wrote: >>I would not want to count on an emotional leader to win a war for me. > >We have for centuries (you know, that me-first, anger stuff, I have a bigger >u-know-what). . .I'm sick of it, too. Let's give the ladies a try. Besides this being at least as sexist as anything I have said, does this mean that you would advocate pacifism, which only encourages aggression? It is strength that prevents and/or wins war, not weakness. >men and >women are capable of both types of thinking. No, I'm against the >discriminatory, exploitative, "negative" generalizations. Generalizations >that all people are intrinsically good, or all people are equal in their >humanity, or men and women are capable of both types of thinking are, to me, >"positive" generalizations. "Generalizations that all people are intrinsically good, or all people are equal in their humanity, or men and women are capable of both types of thinking" are expressions of opinions about human potential. To characterize expressions of opinion about what is actual as negative generalizations implies either that you believe that uniqueness and diversity do not exist or that it is somehow evil to see anything but homogeneity. >No, Tom, less and less people are willing to take this kind of ignorant >crap. It has caused untold suffering, pain, and division. How has not regarding men and women as identical caused more "untold suffering, pain, and division" than falsely accusing others of prejudice, obliterating into meaningless such words as sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, and homophobia, has? >You know, the goal of theosophy is Compassion - oh yes! that illogical, >emotional, sappy concept. You demonstrate that you do not believe that the goal of Theosophy is truth, since to characterize me as believing that compassion is emotional, sappy, and illogical is patently dishonest, and demonstrates the very antithesis of the Theosophical ideals of objectivity and open-mindedness. Your whole article, in refusing to consider the possibility that apparent philosophical differences are actually semantic differences before jumping to conclusions, reeks of the very emotionalism that I have said is a typically feminine weakness. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 16:04:15 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Caring Message-ID: <19961206160402.AAD28899@LOCALNAME> "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >In message <199612050836.DAA29658@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >> Besides, if emotion is a weakness, it's a HUMAN weakness. >The key word here is "IF". > >What is it that motivates people to *do* things? The clear cool >rational and intellectual analysis of the situation? Up to a point, but >until they get all "fired up" (emotional) about it, zilch happens. > >People act when they CARE, not when they reason. Emotion is a great >stength - we just have to careful how we use it. Caring is a function of the intuition, not of emotion. Emotions may or may not also be there, but I define loss of self-control as putting emotion first, which _is_ a human weakness. Compassion is not a feeling, but an attitude. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Dec 96 11:12:45 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: RE; Datre P Message-ID: <961206161244_74024.3352_BHT127-2@CompuServe.COM> Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net > I have a zipped file with about 34 Datre files in and they are very interesting. If it suits you I could send them privately to you as an attachment. I keep dipping in there for a quick read and find statements that ring some bells.< KeitI Yeah! Send me the file pleae. THanks Bee: Keith: To all: No one has bothered to respond about neuropathology, schizo-afffective dissociation, organic brain disease, toxic CNS poisoning and other physical-psychologyical ailments that can be mistaken for ENLIGHTENMENT. Purhaps these conditions are mistake for enlightenment by no one but the purpose suffering the delusion. Still in the East, if you cross your eyes, swoon and looke spaced out people sit at your feet and ask for miracles, in Texas they just think you are drunk again! Namaste Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 06 Dec 96 11:12:49 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: The Craft Message-ID: <961206161248_74024.3352_BHT127-3@CompuServe.COM> I checked out the movie THE CRAFT. I like it. I was suprised. The high school kids weren't the overly glamourous brats of Beverly Hill 90----- or Melrose Place. The film reminded me of all those bad girls movies of the 50s, cycle slut movies of the 60s, disco slut movies of the 70s, and drugged slut movies of the 80's. (Hey, maybe I identify!) :) The girls bone up on the Cabala and use witchcraft to change hair color and get boyfriends. Selfish magic is black magic and there is hell to pay. If you are in a crazy mood, check it our! Namaste Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 09:56:29 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Male Domination Message-ID: <32A85E4A.A9F@earthlink.net> Tom Robertson (In Theos-L 747) >It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, >both physically and volitionally. Tom (Theos-L 748): >Masculinity is active and dominant. Feminity is passive and submissive. >All individuals are mixtures of the two. Men are generally predominantly >masculine, and women are generally predominantly femine. TTT: Sigh.....here we go again. In your sexist viewpoint, you are saying that men are more volitional and dominant, and that women are passive and submissive. What causes the volition to live? What makes life worth living is when we love and are being loved; when we are kind to others and are being treated with kindness; when we have faith in something, someone or some situation, even if it's not clear what the truth or logic is; when we are enthusiastic about anything; and when we are blissfully happy and satisfied. These are all emotions that create volition. Thus, if women are more emotional than men, then they must be more volitional...or...if men are more volitional than women, then they must be more emotional. Look at the growing percentages of households headed by women. If it doesn't take volition to run a household, work a full time job and raise children, I don't know what it takes. Domination, in a positive or negative sense, takes many forms. One can be artistically superior, verbally superior, physically superior, etc. With such broad areas of domination, how can you even argue that masculinity is dominant? Tom: >You have responded in a predominantly feminine way, not >only in how emotional as opposed to rational it was, but also in that you >emphasize diversity and uniqueness more than you do universality and >similarities, an approach that discourages, if not condemns, generalizations >in the name of opposing prejudice, not realizing how prone to prejudice _it_ >is. TTT: Say what? Please use logic in this. Tom: >You imply that sexism is the belief that men and women are not identical. >If that is its definition, then I hope I am considered to be sexist, since that >would mean that I have been understood. Assuming that men and women >are identical, then it directly follows that, in many ways, if not every way, >one is better than the other. TTT: Yes, Tom, you have been understood to be sexist. I don't think you understand what you are talking about. You are a sexist not because you believe that men and women are not identical. They are not. You are a sexist because you believe that Yang is better than Yin and thus should dominate. Tom: >I do not have to be personally acquainted with most women to see general >tendencies, nor would they all have to have told me anything. A high degree >of accuracy can be gained from small samples. It can be mathematically >demonstrated, for example, that a random poll of 1000 people or so gives >a reasonably accurate view of what 260 million people think. TTT: A poll can be twisted to reflect a prejudice. In fact, a book came out with numerous examples regarding the manipulation of polls. Can anyone recall what is its exact title and author? Besides, Tom, where is your poll to support your Logic? Where is your small sample? All I read was a lot of personal prejudice, and an inflexible and illogical viewpoint. You could save yourself the extra typing by writing in playground terms, "Boys are strong, girls are weak, boys are strong, girls are weak. Alan is a sissy." Tom (responding to Alan): >You have responded in a predominantly feminine way, not only in how emotional >as opposed to rational it was, ... Alan: >Simper. (Your dinner's in the dog). TTT: Wow, a huge anomaly! A predominantly emotional man! I say we cage him for a sideshow at Barnum & Bailey's. He may be one of the men growing ovaries. This could be the beginning of the 6th root race! Alan, you can give his dinner to me. I need all the nourishment I can get in order to get my volition going. Being of the weaker sex, I have so much less volition than Tom. Tom, since you seem to not understand the meaning of Yin and Yang, I'm reposting this Art House poem for your benefit. Try to use your emotion to comprehend it. If you can't, ask your girlfriend. yesterday, in the early evening we could not have been in more perfect harmony. yin essence, yang essence swirl and blend all things into One. this morning, I rise lazily to greet the sun behind the haze. one wonders about the misty cling ... discordant notes frustrate the composition. insistence on explaining the Great Mystery strikes the stomach; vibrates ... such a thing lends itself not to explanation. if it did, it would not be the Great Mystery. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 10:03:26 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex Message-ID: <32A85FEB.2D22@earthlink.net> Jerry Schueler: >Have you ever considered the possibility that "sexual desire" is >the physical manifestation of our spiritual thirst for >wholeness? Looked at this way, it is primary, not secondary. >There is nothing wrong with sexual desire per se. The important >thing is how we go about fulfilling that desire. It is no >accident that samadhi and spiritual peak experiences are often >equated with orgasmic ecstasy. TTT: Looking at it that way, I can see how sex could be a primary factor, since it takes Ying and Yang to create wholeness all the way from our sex organs to the universe. Chuck: >Oh, sex is much better than cake and the baser the better. I've been doing >it for 31 years and I have yet to have a belly ache from too much. I LOVE sex AND cake, or lots of little cup cakes with whip cream on top lining my man's body. However, looking at it from the universe view point and from the humane viewpoint, sexual acts should be performed in the spirit of respect toward the union of +-. Does your attitude of doing it just for fun pay any respect to the universe at all, or are you just recommending selfishness? If so, wouldn't that be doctrinaire Satanism and not t/Theosophy? TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 96 13:55:26 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <199612061855.NAA13124@leo.vsla.edu> In this last month of my TSA membership (at least for now) I've been thinking about what one loses by letting go of it. One thing I asked myself was "What percentage of my friends are Theosophists?" I made a list of friends with whom I stay in regular contact (meaning at least every couple of months or so, no matter where they are in the world.) Of the 25 people on it, there were only two Theosophists, both on the outer fringes in terms of frequency of contact. We'll continue to be friends regardless, but I started wondering how typical this was. Can't recall a time in my 18 years of membership in the two TS's that almost all of my friends *weren't* non- Theosophists. How common is that in a small organization like this? Anyone care to respond with a guess or personal report? Maybe people with higher ratios of Theosophist to non-Theosophist friends are much less likely to develop heretical ideas due to social pressure? Just a thought. The scary thought was, of all the people who have been really hateful to me in my adult life, what percentage was Theosophists? Well over half. Don't intend to make any generalizations based on that, since that tiny group is only about 1% of the Theosophists I've known. But it again makes me wonder if this kind of thing is true in the experience of others, and what it signifies. Any ideas? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 11:19:15 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 748 Message-ID: <199612061720.MAA25102@beasley> > From: Art House > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: Sex, birth control and all the rest of it > ******** > - What I'm trying to get at is the idea that birth control has tipped > the balance of the natural consequences of sex to the point where we CAN > developed cultural attitudes that concentrate more on the pleasure of > sex than the children from sex. I'm not saying this is bad or good. I'm > just wondering what effect this might have vis a vis spirituality in the > culture at large. HPB didn't, couldn't have spoken directly to this > issue. Does it help raise us up, spiritualize sex, set up tensions that > draw our energies down and out, involve us more in personality life than > spiritual life, etc? I'm just fishing ... Being a practical person that came from a family of little material means, my first reponse was one of economics. Some of the people that lived nearby in my childhood neighborhood had five children sleeping in one bedroom. Ninety-nine percent of the girls graduating from my high school did not go to college. The value of family planning in terms of being able to support and nurture children properly is first in my mind, rather than the luxury of considering how it effects one's spiritual path. Sorry, but this is my background. > > The same goes for the presence of images in the culture at large that > seem to reinforce an emphatically sexual, personality orientation toward > identity rather. Watch TV for an hour, read just about any magazine. You > don't get a preponderance of uplifting images of humanity (unless you > watch talk shows!). You have to do mental gymnastics to spiritualize > even a little of what hits your eye every day. Before you know it your > buried in the mass miasma and have to trudge yourself up the ladder of > identity again. Sure you can just relax and enjoy it, but what effect > does that have on your progress if your habit is to cease the > spiritualizing effort? In terms of relaxing, I was speaking of those who aren't concerned with their progress, who don't even know the path exists. They are still enjoying the play of it. For those of us who have decided to look behind the curtain of life and wanted to know how the lights and pulleys work, that's another story. I can only speak for myself, in that I find myself watching less and less television. It seems like such a trivial waste of time. No wonder more people are turning to the Internet, where there at least some degree of interactivity and choice. I'm pretty burned out on magazines, too, since they seem to mostly advertising. That's why people who yearn from something more in their life join organizations and seek out special book stores that will fill their needs. One can still go down to the video store and rent some good stuff. I fondly remember "LIttle Buddha." -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 12:11:30 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Numberless Universes Message-ID: <9612062011.AA08553@toto.csustan.edu> JHE >>When HPB was referring to the physical "universe," she was >>using the word in the same sense as was used by Kant. That is, >>she believed that there were numberless island universes. >>Today, we call them galaxies. TR >I am glad to hear this, since the alternative view implied by >her ideas of universal (taken literally) manvantaras and >pralayas applies what I believe to be a universal principle >inconsistently. JHE One of the big problems with the SD is that HPB is trying to cover a lot a different concepts with a very limited vocabulary. Words like "cosmos"; "Kosmos", "Solar System", "Universal solar system", and "universe" all have different meanings, though in ordinary conversation, people not used to HPB's terms might tend to blur them all together. Another thing: HPB differentiates between "infinite" and "absolute." Though the ladder term may be incomprehensible to us, it is not infinite. TR >The idea that everything is part of something greater implies >that there is no ultimate whole, but that, infinitely higher and >infinitely lower, the same cyclic principle applies. It makes >much more sense if "universal" manvantaras and pralayas are >regarded as applying to something definite and limited. JHE Every planet and star is supposed to have its own manvantara and pralaya. This is also supposed to be true of the solar system, which is basically the subject of the Stanzas of Dzyan. By the rule of analogy and correspondence, I guess we can assume that there are manvantaras and pralayas on the galactic and super- galactic string levels too. I'm sure that there is a limit (an "ultimate whole" as you say) somewhere, but so far that limit is beyond the reach of our telescopes. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 11:44:39 -0800 From: April Joy Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: <32A877A7.1BD7@gnp.com> > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, > both physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring > men to be the leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of > injustice, which is distinct from domination. First of all most women *do not want* to be dominated by a man, that is a myth made up by men. For a while this myth was force fed to woman from child hood to adulthood. Then women grew up and realized this wasn't true. Women are capable of making logial decisions. Women are strong and capable of taking care of ourselves physically, financially. Domination by anyone ultimately leads to injustice. Dominations of blacks led to slavery. Domination of children led to child slavery in the industrial revolution and in early times in history. Domination of women led to abuse by husbands, fathers, brothers, churches, and the legal system. Male domination resulted in women not having the right to their children, their homes, their money, their bodies, their religion and their own minds. Women were locked in insane asylums based solely on the word of a husband some were even lobotimized. Why? to get rid of a wife and get a new one, or to be able to fool around with out a wife to be worried about. Women were allowed to be beaten within an inch of their lives. Domination of women by men led to injustice to women and ultimately to abuses ranging from false imprisonment, to sexual abuse, to murder. Sexism is based on a belief that one Gender has the right to dominate another due to myths that one Gender is somehow superior to the other. > I do not understand what it means to think emotionally. I do not > regard your question as very difficult, since I would choose a leader > who acted as a result of thinking logically over one who acted > emotionally without hesitation. That is one reason why men are > leaders, since they do this better than women do. I would not want to > count on an emotional leader to win a war for me. Having emotion means that you are capable of feeling compassion and deciding if the results of an action is reasonable. Logic only gets you so far in life, emotion helps soften Logic so that decisions are just. Women today are starting to grow out of this I cry when I don't get what I want. The reason women had this mentality in the first place is because men worked hard to have women believe they were childlike. Women then acted in some cases like children, crying and whining and simpering to get the men who had legal rights over them to do something for them.Along with that teaching came the force fed belief that we were irrational, unintelligent, therefore schooling was wasted on women. Basically for centuries we were brainwashed to believe we were incapable of rational thought. We were also brainwashed to believe we were physcially frail making women believe they must give-in om a phsycially assaulted instead of fighting. Women have moved past centuries of brainwashing and realized that we are capable, logical, intelligent people. We now go to school, have jobs, own property and even defend ourselves against attacks. We are moving up into politics, business and foreign affairs. We are learning that our lives do not end and begin with our husbands and children. That we are seperate individuals that have rights to life, liberty and justice. Furthermore feminine emotions is womans greatest strength. Women have the ability to release anger, hatred, fear, love, with one good cry. Then get on with there lives. While men tend to hold on to the emotion until they snap or die of dieseases brought on by unreleased emotion. Having emotion means women tend to care more deeply for people around them and are more inclined to not hurt others. While men see hurting people as a sign of strength. Women see it as a sign of a sick individual. Macho males don't care about anything but themselves and their own pleasures. Most women care about the world around them and how their actions affect that world. They are more compassionate. Women are less likely to commit murder, sexual abuse, physcial abuse. Women are less likely to start wars. Men are more likely to commit murder, rape, physically and sexually abuse another. They tend to steal and destroy other peoples property. Men are more apt to believe war is the final solution while women would seek other alternatives. Women in general are more peaceful than men but that doesn't make women less intelligent or less capable. >In many cases, it is true. PMS and irrationality are correlated. At least once a month women have an excuse for our irrationality, so what is man's excucs for their irrational behavior. You know what it is guilt. Men will accuse a woman of cheating but if you really look into it usually the man was cheating and then accused the woman of it out to make the woman the guilty party. A man's best friend rapes his wife/girlfriend. He dumps the wife/girlfriend for having sex with his friend and keeps the friend. Not very rational. A man will get up in the morning yelling and screaming at his family for hours because he was grumpy from staying late the night before partying with the guys. Not very rational. A man will get angry with another man for a small slight and end up in a ball room brawl. Not very rational. A man will oogle woman and make cheap remarks and explode if their girlfriend does the same about men. Not very rational. A man will refuse to take care of his kids and abandon them because he doesn't want the responsibility and continue to have sex with other women unprotected. Not very rational. A man will yell at his wife for the bills and go buy a new car they can't afford. Not very rational. A man will go party over the weekend and then get upset that his wife want's to go have a girls day out. Not very rational. A man will get angry when a woman will not give her itinerary for her day and explode if she dares to ask about his day. Not very rational. A man will cheat on his wife, come home smelling of perfume, lipstick on his collar and expect his wife not to notice or believe she hasn't the right to question him about it. Not very rational. I can go on, but I won't. Men have their share of irrational moments, but these moments usually end up in a woman getting pysically abused, or dead. April Joy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 09:43:11 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961207155527.1e4fac86@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to Tom Robertson >It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both >physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be >the leaders. Needed - one scalpel. Not talking about you, Tom, but about the need for people to dissect the persistent and undiscriminating association of weakness with femininity, in human culture. In my observation, there are hugely positive energies associated with the "feminine" in nature and accessible to humans of either physical gender, in addition to the far more recognized "masculine" ones. Energies that women - and men - can transmit. IMO, the word weakness should be kept for description of a condition of low energy, less evolution or disadvantage, and not as a ready adjunct when anyone wants to define femininity. A useful metaphor (perception, to some, probably) is to consider the relationship of one person to another in terms of energy flows. One person then can be stronger physically than another, in a relationship (and it's not always a man who is stronger than a woman). At an emotional level, the person who is physically stronger might play largely receptive roles to the other person's strength and clarity of transmission. Again, at a mental level, one may be clearer, more wide-ranging, stronger then the other, and *it is not necessarily true* that the person who is stronger physically is also stronger emotionally, or again, mentally. The three (make it four, perhaps, to include spirituality) can be in all sorts of relative strength. The word "strong" is in some situations better replaced by "radiative", as the process is not necessarily one of overpoweremnt, but is often one of transmission by one being to the equally strong attraction and reception of energy by the other. "Magnetic", perhaps, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Furthermore, the direction of the polarity can switch quite rapidly in time, so that a man could be the transmitter at one level at one moment in one context, and a woman be the transmitter in another way later on. Further still, it need not be man-woman. Polarities like this can exist between man and man, and woman and woman, and many of them have nothing to sexuality. There is IMO, a very great need to lift the current lopsided stereotypes of social thinking and of language into something like what I've tried to sketch above. Dion Fortune in her book "Esoteric Aspects of Love, Sex and Marriage" says that both the poles in this energy interplay are connected with the divine Source - just that one draws energy from it and the other returns the energy to it. So then, "liking to be dominated" might become "enjoying the magnetically receptive role", and liking to dominate could be transformed into "enjoying the radiant transmissive role", in a context of freedom, empowerment and mutual respect far beyond those implicit in old terms like domination. > .... I would choose a leader who acted as >a result of thinking logically over one who acted emotionally without >hesitation. That is one reason why men are leaders, since they do this >better than women do. I would not want to count on an emotional leader to >win a war for me. The "logical" decisions of leaders more often than not have a large emotional component that has a great influence on their choice. Furthermore, those same logical leaders have often deliberately stirred powerful emotions in their people for the sake of promoting a war or swaying mass opinion. Advertisers and salespeople know the overriding importance of feelings and emotions in people's buying decisions. Often, logic is a thin veneer in these. In my observation, men often believe that logic is of supreme importance, and believe they are being logical in their decisions, partly *because* they are not so aware of the emotional side of their own natures, or of the role that emotion is playing in their decisions. It is fashionable and essential to self-esteem at this point in history, to appear to be logical and believe you are being logical, and it is an ideal that is not-too-well met much of the time. Men often accuse a woman of being irrational when they really mean the woman should process information the same way, and have the same values, but irrationality is probably better seen as a state of fragmentation or distortion in the field of consciousness, with numerous different possible causes. >> Actually, what is needed is a good balance of logic and emotion. > >They both have their purposes. Emotion is a good source of information. >Logic is a tool for determining truth. Being "emotional," though, in the >sense of acting irrationally, as opposed to thinking logically, is a >typically feminine weakness. As I see it, logic is about making or finding structural connections of a mental kind, while emotion is in a more fluid realm of connections between self and a mentally-conceived goal, and the energy of attraction or repulsion that flows as a result, ie desire. There are lots of other kinds of emotion, too, but they share a similar general quality of fluidity and energy, I would say. It is when the different facets of our nature are poorly connected with reality and with each other, that irrationality (failure at a mental level) or cruelty/indifference (failure at an emotional level) occur. Connections are a major expression of unity, and unity is a major aspect of what the T.S. is about, so it's nice to know how this discussion is connected with the T.S. :-) Humanity needs, IMO, to root out all tendency to see emotion as some kind of opposite to logic, but rather see them as two complementary aspects of being. A giant intellect harnessed to and impelled by a pigmy emotional nature is about as terrifying as a rampant, overpowering emotional nature informed by a meagre intellect. Balance, oh, balance; where are you? I know you're in there somewhere! [Then in a later post, Tom writes] >I would be surprised if >anyone would contest the idea that, in most marriages, the man is more of >a leader than the woman is, a condition that they both want. Men tend to lead in some areas of the relationship, for sure, but women unmistakeably lead in others, in ways that they both want, when things are going well. Men sometimes tend to overlook or undervalue those ways, too. However, in my observation, men too often crap out from almost every form of leadership in today's social climate. There are whole strata of society where the majority of men can't cope with relationships and responsiblity, and they take off, physically and/or into some drug (alcohol included). They literally don't have enough of what it takes, and it's not a simple finger-pointing matter, for they to a considerable extent have had only fractured dysfunctional family patterns programmed into themselves in childhood. They are the most vulnerable because they are least able to see themselves for what they are, let alone find the strength to do something about it. There *are* ways, but society's resources of interest, commitment, ingenuity and love are going to need a BIG input before they're equal to the need. Not saying that women don't have their version of black holes they're sunk in either. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:58:09 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: ?? Message-ID: In message <32A85FEB.2D22@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >TTT S=o) Please decipher. 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, 6 Dec 1996 20:31:56 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <2YGbVQA8KIqyEwnl@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199612061855.NAA13124@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >The scary thought was, of all the people who have been really >hateful to me in my adult life, what percentage was >Theosophists? Well over half. Ditto. > Don't intend to make any >generalizations based on that, since that tiny group is only >about 1% of the Theosophists I've known. But it again makes me >wonder if this kind of thing is true in the experience of >others, and what it signifies. I think it signifies that the modern Theosophical Society has warped and twisted any genuinely "ancient wisdom" into a cultish, power-seeking minority of "holier-than-thou" people. (Though of course there are some who are not like this). Sadly, your experience and mind has been echoed back to me by other EX-TS members. I shall be letting my own membership lapse when subscriptions are due again next year. 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, 6 Dec 1996 18:35:02 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: A compilation on sex Message-ID: <961206183501_1852106606@emout09.mail.aol.com> Gertrude, Oh, to be 31 again and get to make the same happy mistakes all over. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:30:39 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: A man will ..... Message-ID: A brilliant post! I trust everyone will forgive me for repeating some of it! I hope April will join us in Theosophy International, where truth is free and equal for all, and no one can dominate anyone. Alan In message <32A877A7.1BD7@gnp.com>, April Joy writes >Men will accuse a woman of cheating but if you really look into it >usually the man was cheating and then accused the woman of it out to >make the woman the guilty party. > >A man's best friend rapes his wife/girlfriend. He dumps the >wife/girlfriend for having sex with his friend and keeps the friend. Not >very rational. > >A man will get up in the morning yelling and screaming at his family for >hours because he was grumpy from staying late the night before partying >with the guys. Not very rational. > >A man will get angry with another man for a small slight and end up in a >ball room brawl. Not very rational. > >A man will oogle woman and make cheap remarks and explode if their >girlfriend does the same about men. Not very rational. > >A man will refuse to take care of his kids and abandon them because he >doesn't want the responsibility and continue to have sex with other >women unprotected. Not very rational. > >A man will yell at his wife for the bills and go buy a new car they >can't afford. Not very rational. > >A man will go party over the weekend and then get upset that his wife >want's to go have a girls day out. Not very rational. > >A man will get angry when a woman will not give her itinerary for her >day and explode if she dares to ask about his day. Not very rational. > >A man will cheat on his wife, come home smelling of perfume, lipstick on >his collar and expect his wife not to notice or believe she hasn't the >right to question him about it. Not very rational. > >I can go on, but I won't. > >Men have their share of irrational moments, but these moments usually >end up in a woman getting pysically abused, or dead. > >April Joy --------- 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, 6 Dec 1996 23:17:14 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Caring Message-ID: In message <19961206160402.AAD28899@LOCALNAME>, Tom Robertson writes (quoting me >>) >>People act when they CARE, not when they reason. Emotion is a great >>stength - we just have to careful how we use it. > >Caring is a function of the intuition, not of emotion. Emotions may or may >not also be there, but I define loss of self-control as putting emotion >first, which _is_ a human weakness. Compassion is not a feeling, but an >attitude. Define intuition Define emotion Define compassion Clearly you are on a different planet from most of us on the list, so if there is to be any kind of *sensible* discussion, then we must begin by defining our terms. If you are using the above words as I have understood them for some 50 years, then you are either talking crap or you are a very sick person. 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: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 20:13:13 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <32A8D2B9.23FF@eden.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > In this last month of my TSA membership (at least for now) I've > been thinking about what one loses by letting go of it. One > thing I asked myself was "What percentage of my friends are > Theosophists?" I made a list of friends with whom I stay in > regular contact (meaning at least every couple of months or so, no > matter where they are in the world.) Of the 25 people on it, > there were only two Theosophists, both on the outer fringes in > terms of frequency of contact. We'll continue to be friends > regardless, but I started wondering how typical this was. > Can't recall a time in my 18 years of membership in the two > TS's that almost all of my friends *weren't* non- > Theosophists. How common is that in a small organization like > this? Anyone care to respond with a guess or personal report? > Maybe people with higher ratios of Theosophist to non-Theosophist > friends are much less likely to develop heretical ideas due to social > pressure? Just a thought. > > The scary thought was, of all the people who have been really > hateful to me in my adult life, what percentage was > Theosophists? Well over half. Don't intend to make any MKR: Was there any change in the percentage after you published the Masters Revealed book? If so what was your estimated percentages before and after? Just curious. Just to add my 2 cents worth, I have run into a lot of good people among the membership of TS and am yet to run into a dishonest one. I am more likely to trust a T/theosophist than one who is not -- I guess the exposure to the T/theosophy does affect individuals. Others may have had a different experience. Once in a while, one runs into the proverbial "bad apple" who cannot be trusted -- and such a "bad apple" could be one who may have been a member for many years, may be very well read, intelligent, and may even have held offices. So I tend to start off with trust and see if the actions increase the level of trust or decrease the level of trust -- as a high level of trust takes a lot of time to build and quick to destroy. Once destroyed, it is almost impossible to rebuild. > generalizations based on that, since that tiny group is only > about 1% of the Theosophists I've known. But it again makes me > wonder if this kind of thing is true in the experience of > others, and what it signifies. > > Any ideas? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:23:01 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Birth control Message-ID: In message <199612061720.MAA25102@beasley>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >Being a practical person that came from a family of little material means, >my first >reponse was one of economics. Some of the people that lived nearby in my >childhood >neighborhood had five children sleeping in one bedroom. Ninety-nine >percent of the >girls graduating from my high school did not go to college. The value of >family >planning in terms of being able to support and nurture children properly is >first in my mind, rather than the luxury of considering how it effects >one's spiritual path. Sorry, but this is my background. Don't you think that the very circumstance you describe, while indeed important in an economic (and compassionate) sense, very much affects the potential for spiritual growth of the children concerned? And the parents? If all there is time for is trying to figure out where the next dollar is coming from is at the top of the priority list, then "spiritual growth" comes a long way down. High-flying ideals don't fill hungry bellies. 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, 06 Dec 1996 20:01:30 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Women's Mission Message-ID: <32A8CFFA.3DF0@eden.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > M K Ramadoss wrote: > > >Hi > > > >Here is an excerpt from "The Paradoxes of the Highest Science" by Eliphas > >Levi in which there were footnotes by E.O. I think it may interest some here > >in light of all the discussion we had on Sex etc. > > > > "Woman's mission is to become the mother of future occultists -- of those > >who will be born without sin. On the elevation of of woman the world's > >redemption and salvation hinge. > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This reminds me of what a conservative talk show host (certainly not a > Theosophist) included in what he called his essential truths: that women > are primarily responsible for the civilizing of humanity. There is perhaps a lot of truth to this statement. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:00:58 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Pacifism Message-ID: <19961207040052.AAB2465@LOCALNAME> cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) wrote: >And isn't the act of war irrational in and of itself? >Thus, so-called war leaders are obviously "emotionally" driven. >Otherwise, they would be cold-blooded, calculated killers. >Gertrude the Pacifistic Churchmouse This implies that self-defense is evil, that it is better to let injustice prevail rather than to oppose it, and that competition is not beneficial. I see the cycle of war and peace as being based on the same principle as the cycle of life and death, life and war being the time for growth, death and peace being the time for rest. Competition is necessary for growth. War is never motivated by killing, but by the benefits of killing. All of life supports itself by killing. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:00:55 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Objective Beauty Message-ID: <19961207040052.AAA2465@LOCALNAME> > From: Milton L. Dawes, 102362,1465 >And whose definition of "idea", or 'egoist', or ' >pornography' , or 'truth' , justice, 'beauty' , etc., is the 'right' one? And >how do we decide what we mean by ''right''? As mentioned, there seems to be no >theoretical end to these puzzles. Implied in all of these questions is at least the belief that there is an objective truth, justice, and beauty. One extreme is to equate one's own perception with reality, which is my definition of arrogance, but the other is to not believe there is any reality to perceive, which is my definition of insanity. That "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is only half the story, the other half being that objective beauty must exist in order to be perceived. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 18:40:04 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Russian Dolls Message-ID: Hey! The discussion of Russian Dolls sparked a bit of interest, as I'm using the metaphor in an (as yet unpublished) book about unleashing spiritual purpose. Though I hesitate to bludgeon the list by quoting my own sweet self (how *gosh*) ... I thought I'd make an exception this time with a short excerpt ... its from a section of the book that (attempts) to discuss the fact that virtually everyone who has actually touched the damn "Path" has inadvertantly been subject to periods of intense inner turmoil: "Much of the life in Earthworld is composed of condensations of the one, all-pervading life, like one of those Russian dolls that is opened to reveal a smaller replica of itself within, which in turn is opened to find an even smaller one, and so on. To be human is to understand that within you nature is attempting, and partially succeeding at, the apparently impossible: Each one of us is one of those smallest of dolls, which when opened reveals a larger one, which is opened to find a still larger one.... And this is the source of those periodic episodes when we are simply engulfed in the winds of the Turmoil. At the core of each of us rumbles the clear sensation that something far larger, grander and more magnificent than can possibly exist within the confines of who we are nonetheless does exist, against all reason and despite all outward appearances. Even more remarkable is the realization (that all who have germinated must face), that this internal immensity has a design of its own *that is not subject to the standards and beliefs of the "smaller dolls".* We can choose to allow our smaller selves to be progressively opened, or we can choose to fight against it, but if we choose the opening, if we choose to germinate, if we choose to unleash the Resonant Purpose, we cannot control what we will become, nor the worlds of activity that Purpose will thrust us into. In fact, we cannot even envision how to think about it, any more that a caterpillar, whose world is composed of inching slowly along solid objects and who never strays more than a few yards from the place it came into being, could understand the flight of the moth that will someday rise from its husk." **************************************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:19:17 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <961206231916_1986379984@emout16.mail.aol.com> Paul, I don't know. My friends basically fall into three catagories, Theosphists, Magickians (yes it's a new spelling that's getting used) and S/M folk. Now with roughly a third of my friends being thesophists, and there is actually quite a bit of overlap with the other two thirds, I don't see myself as being any less heretical for it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:30:28 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Birth control Message-ID: <961207003027_1220096520@emout05.mail.aol.com> Alan, I share your opinion. No doubt there will be those ignorant souls who will point out how spiritual people in poor lands can be, but they are not surrounded by a mental field that forces them to think in material terms first. In our society, it is essential to have physical comfort before one can even begin to seriously consider anything spiritual. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 01:16:10 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612070816.BAA27217@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >Besides this being at least as sexist as anything I have said, does this >mean that you would advocate pacifism, which only encourages aggression? It >is strength that prevents and/or wins war, not weakness. Pacifism "only" encourages aggression? I disagree, I have seen both personal and public examples of how pacifism saved one from bodily harm and death, lessening the aggressive emotion felt by the would-be perpetrator. Having said that, I think there are many cases of "war" being necessary (certainly Hitler, among others, needed to be stopped). The point of my statement was that too many wars have been started by men for emotional reasons cloaked under the guise of logic. We have seen how men do as leaders (some good, some bad), it is time to give the ladies a chance - since history has proven that men and women are capable of both types of thinking. Bottom line: the rationale for denying women leadership roles (public and private) has been proven invalid. >How has not regarding men and women as identical caused more "untold >suffering, pain, and division" than falsely accusing others of prejudice, >obliterating into meaningless such words as sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, >and homophobia, has? It hasn't if one is being falsely accused. What is meaningless to you is not meaningless to others. What would you call someone who thinks women are inferior as a species? What would you call someone who thinks Jews should be carted off to concentration camps? What would you call someone who thinks AIDS is God's punishment to the gay community? Ignorant? Misguided? Yes, but then is everyone who is ignorant a racist? or homophobe? or sexist? These "meaningless" words are packed with meaning, and they are merciful in the way they "condemn" someone for a specific action, rather than attacking the whole of the person. >You demonstrate that you do not believe that the goal of Theosophy is truth, >since to characterize me as believing that compassion is emotional, sappy, >and illogical is patently dishonest, and demonstrates the very antithesis of >the Theosophical ideals of objectivity and open-mindedness. Your whole >article, in refusing to consider the possibility that apparent philosophical >differences are actually semantic differences before jumping to conclusions, >reeks of the very emotionalism that I have said is a typically feminine >weakness. Yes, I do believe, from what you have written - my only source in which to characterize - that you would find compassion illogical, since compassion is an emotion. Regarding your statement about philosophical vs. sematic differences, I can only say this: the philosophical thought which claims there is a god by the use of reason and evidence alone (design argument) is called deism; the philosophical thought that everything is unified and that this unity is divine is called pantheism; the philosophical thought that women are inferior to men is called sexism; and on we can go. What disturbs me the most, especially since I've been on this discussion list, is that those who declare they are (and indeed seem to be) intelligent, and aware that we all come from the same source, and know that things are rarely as they seem, still hold on to these harmful prejudices. And they have the sagacity to mask these thoughts in honeyed, complex language, sometimes even calling forth the 'divine wisdom' as ally, and in doing so, can also skillfully evade direct accusations. I see it in your posts and I've seen it in others. The question is not "Is it ignorance?" but "Is it willful ignorance?" Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 7 03:31:47 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612070831.DAA29935@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >Tom Robertson wrote: > >> It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both >> physically and volitional. Most women want this, preferring men to be >the >> leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of injustice, which is >> distinct from domination. > >This attitude seems to me to have more to do with a need to dominate, to >take control of someone in your life because one is basically afraid of the >othe person and the possibility that one may lose them. My personal >observation is that men are afraid of women because women have so much >power over males. They can arouse desire in males, causing the males to >lose control as their hormones take over. The other is a discovery of >emotion within the male, as he begins to have overpowering feelings for a >female. To a group of males who have been taught to hold back emotion and >be logically in control at all times, it has got to be difficult to be >overtaken with emotion for a female and realize that person has the power >to hurt you by rejection or in other ways. So the feared object must be >controlled. > >The best thing I ever read on this subject was from some Bailey material >that I read on the public transit. Logical males are striving to get more >emotional. Emotional women are striving to get more logical. In the end, >we are all striving for balance. > >-Ann E. Bermingham In some cases, this (strive for balance) is true. However, in most that I've encountered, women have realized this control that they have over men, and they use it to their full advantage. Just IMO. So, in actuality, society is going from one extreme to the other. Either that or it has always been this way. In fact, I often wonder if, for all these years, women have simply allowed men to believe that they are superior, by protesting chauvenism etc., where, behind the scenes, the women have more control than they know what to do with. Men are pawns. Men are kings. Men are bishops. But the woman, the queen, is the most powerful piece on the board. (obvious allegory). The woman protects the man for the man is weak, and may only move one space at a time. The knights, bishops, and pawns aren't there to protect the king, they are there to make way for the queen. Make way for the kill. For ages, the woman has been considered the manipulator, the protector, the power. The man is simply the figurehead. IMHO, of course. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1904 00:55:28 +0000 From: Art House Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <83DA5C7B.136F@earthlink.net> Ann Bermingham: >To a group of males who have been taught to hold back emotion and >be logically in control at all times, it has got to be difficult to be >overtaken with emotion for a female and realize that person has the power >to hurt you by rejection or in other ways. So the feared object must be >controlled. TTT: In parts of the Middle East, women are covered from head to toe so that they do not arouse men. In the U.S., rape victims are often grilled on whether THEY CAUSED their attackers to lose control by dressing or acting provocatively. Tom Robertson: >You demonstrate that you do not believe that the goal of Theosophy is truth, >since to characterize me as believing that compassion is emotional, sappy, >and illogical is patently dishonest, and demonstrates the very antithesis of >the Theosophical ideals of objectivity and open-mindedness. Your whole >article, in refusing to consider the possibility that apparent philosophical >differences are actually semantic differences before jumping to conclusions, >reeks of the very emotionalism that I have said is a typically feminine >weakness. TTT: You do well enough on your own characterizing yourself as sexist, illogical, prejudiced and narrow-minded. Quick, Data, lend this man your emotion chip! Tom: >Compassion is not a feeling, but an attitude. TTT: Hmmmm, let's see....according to the Random House College Dictionary: Compassion-A FEELING of deep sympathy and sorrow for another's suffering or misfortune, accompanied by a desire to alleviate the pain or remove its cause. My, Tom, for a person who champions logic by stating that emotion causes hastiness, you sure are hasty with your definition. To Murray Stentiford regarding last post: Well said! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1904 00:58:44 +0000 From: Art House Subject: Cross-eyed Message-ID: <83DA5D3F.237C@earthlink.net> Keith Price: >Still in the East, if you cross your eyes, >swoon and looke spaced out people sit at your feet and ask for miracles, in >Texas they just think you are drunk again! Well, then, all of us cybergeeks who sit long hours in front of the monitor should go to the East. We could have a huge following. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 02:50:35 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612070950.CAA27725@snowden.micron.net> The Triaist wrote: >In some cases, this (strive for balance) is true. However, in most that I've >encountered, women have realized this control that they have over men, and >they use it to their full advantage. Just IMO. So, in actuality, society is >going from one extreme to the other. Either that or it has always been this >way. In fact, I often wonder if, for all these years, women have simply >allowed men to believe that they are superior, by protesting chauvenism etc., >where, behind the scenes, the women have more control than they know what to >do with. Men are pawns. Men are kings. Men are bishops. But the woman, the >queen, is the most powerful piece on the board. (obvious allegory). The woman >protects the man for the man is weak, and may only move one space at a time. >The knights, bishops, and pawns aren't there to protect the king, they are >there to make way for the queen. Make way for the kill. For ages, the woman >has been considered the manipulator, the protector, the power. The man is >simply the figurehead. IMHO, of course. I repeat: What disturbs me the most, especially since I've been on this discussion list, is that those who declare they are (and indeed seem to be) intelligent, and aware that we all come from the same source, and know that things are rarely as they seem, still hold on to these harmful prejudices. And they have the sagacity to mask these thoughts in honeyed, complex language, sometimes even calling forth the 'divine wisdom' as ally, and in doing so, can also skillfully evade direct accusations. I see it in your posts and I've seen it in others. The question is not "Is it ignorance?" but "Is it willful ignorance?" Kym Never suffer fools gladly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 18:15:49 +0100 From: Michael Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961207171549.00689c9c@xs4all.nl> K.Paul Johnson wrote: >The scary thought was, of all the people who have been really hateful to me in my adult life, what percentage was Theosophists? Well over half. Don't intend to make any generalizations based on that, since that tiny group is only about 1% of the Theosophists I've known. But it again makes me wonder if this kind of thing is true in the experience of others, and what it signifies. To repeat what I've written on theos-l several times before, I think what we should come to is a male god (essence) and a female god (essence) ruling together. On earth, I think, as does Roberto Assagioli, that instead of classifying what male traits are and what female traits are, which greatly overlaps anyway when you start looking at individual people, I think that every human being should contribute to the common good whatever his/her best abilties allow him/her to contribute. Some women are good business people and some men enjoy being house husbands. I used to know a man who was very nurturing, whether with his prize roses, or his patients. He was also very gentle, but let me assure you he was unmistakably a man. The work to be done, whether in society or in a marriage, should be done by whoever enjoys it most, and if it's not enjoyable, it should be shared. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:28:48 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <961207114940_1521347804@emout01.mail.aol.com> K. Paul Johnson writes--> The scary thought was, of all the people who have been really hateful to me in my adult life, what percentage was Theosophists? Well over half. Don't intend to make any generalizations based on that, since that tiny group is only about 1% of the Theosophists I've known. But it again makes me wonder if this kind of thing is true in the experience of others, and what it signifies. Richard Ihle writes--> Thought-provoking question, asked in a nice way as usual. I have wondered about something similar from time to time myself. Actually, one of the first times I ran across mention of the organization was in one of Vivekananda's books (now only vaguely remembered) where he had found himself himself stranded or something in Chicago on his trip from India to the Parliment of Religions (?). Anyway, the part I remember best is that he asked some local Theosophists for help, and they refused for some mean reason (like he wasn't a member or something). Thus, for a long time, one partial image I had of Theosophists was that many of them would leave you sitting on the curb in distress if you or your ideas didn't please them 100%. . . . --But I suppose old Vivekananda should have been grateful for one thing: since he had never written anything like THE MASTERS REVEALED, at least the Theosophists didn't try to kick the crap out of him before they left him there. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:25:49 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <9612071825.AA13825@toto.csustan.edu> KPJ >>The scary thought was, of all the people who have been really >>hateful to me in my adult life, what percentage was >>Theosophists? Well over half. AB >Ditto. JHE Ditto again KPJ >> Don't intend to make any >>generalizations based on that, since that tiny group is only >>about 1% of the Theosophists I've known. But it again makes me >>wonder if this kind of thing is true in the experience of >>others, and what it signifies. AB >I think it signifies that the modern Theosophical Society has >warped and twisted any genuinely "ancient wisdom" into a >cultish, power-seeking minority of "holier-than-thou" people. >(Though of course there are some who are not like this). Sadly, >your experience and mind has been echoed back to me by other >EX-TS members. I shall be letting my own membership lapse when >subscriptions are due again next year. JHE Ditto again. My bad experiences with certain TS members (who were in power) began when I ran for the National Board (TS, Wheaton) about ten years ago. Before that, I got along with everybody. I think there is a message here. Today, most of my close friends are very dedicated students of Theosophy but are not members of any Theosophical Organization. Though I remain a life member of the TS and support the principles that it is supposed to stand for, I remain marginalized in the Organization- -and that is OK with me. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:03:51 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Caring Message-ID: <199612080003.RAA09750@snowden.micron.net> Alan writes: >Define intuition >Define emotion >Define compassion > >Clearly you are on a different planet from most of us on the list, so if >there is to be any kind of *sensible* discussion, then we must begin by >defining our terms. If you are using the above words as I have >understood them for some 50 years, then you are either talking crap or >you are a very sick person. Oh my! TTT was right - 'Tis so true, you gotta love this Alan guy. . . :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:03:16 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <199612080019.TAA29523@cliff.cris.com> > K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > In this last month of my TSA membership (at least for now) I've > been thinking about what one loses by letting go of it. One > thing I asked myself was "What percentage of my friends are > Theosophists?" I made a list of friends with whom I stay in I've had many Theosophist friends for over twenty years, mainly, I think, because I live so close to Olcott and was involved with the LCC. The people I found disturbing were the ones who were in power and tried to manipulate me. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:17:57 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 750 Message-ID: <199612080019.TAA29547@cliff.cris.com> > From: John Straughn > > In some cases, this (strive for balance) is true. However, in most that I've > encountered, women have realized this control that they have over men, and > they use it to their full advantage. Just IMO. So, in actuality, society is > going from one extreme to the other. Either that or it has always been this > way. In fact, I often wonder if, for all these years, women have simply > allowed men to believe that they are superior, by protesting chauvenism etc., > where, behind the scenes, the women have more control than they know what to > do with. Men are pawns. Men are kings. Men are bishops. But the woman, the > queen, is the most powerful piece on the board. (obvious allegory). The woman > protects the man for the man is weak, and may only move one space at a time. > The knights, bishops, and pawns aren't there to protect the king, they are > there to make way for the queen. Make way for the kill. For ages, the woman > has been considered the manipulator, the protector, the power. The man is > simply the figurehead. IMHO, of course. You bring up some good points. The pendulum does tend to swing from one direction to another, in an effort to achieve balance. While there have been some women that have had a great deal of power, I doubt that the majority of women in recent history have been in the drivers seat. But there certainly is something to be said for what you said about the queen on the chess board. When you described woman as the manipulator, protector and seat of power, I thought of one word - mother! Every man that comes into the world has to be under the watch of the most powerful woman in his live, his own momma. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:45:09 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > The people I found disturbing were the ones who were in power and > tried to manipulate me. > It appears that money and power (in any form or fashion) does seem to change people in strange ways. If one is not after their money or power, then one can be very independent. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:51:34 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 750 Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > protector and seat of power, I thought of one word - mother! > Every man that comes into the world has to be under the watch of the > most powerful woman in his live, his own momma. Well said. Have not you heard of the story that one of the most famous and decorated soldiers in recent US history, Gen MacArthur was always deferential to his mother close to being afraid of her. In the ancient Indian tradition, when one gives up everything that ties one, money, power, name, fame irrevocably when one becomes a monk, there is only one exception. His relationship with his mother. A monk is not permitted to enter into anyone's house including that of which was his own prior to his becoming a monk. But when his mother dies, he is allowed to do the final rites to his mother. That bond or gratitude is something that cannot be broken no matter. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:33:00 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <199612070816.BAA27217@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >The question is not "Is it ignorance?" but "Is it willful ignorance?" Guess where I put my money ... 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, 7 Dec 1996 15:31:17 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <199612070816.BAA27217@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes (quoting Tom Robertson) >meaningless such words as sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, >>and homophobia Tom is clearly crazy. All of these words have meaning, and are used regularly in context by a large section of those who speak and understand English. 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: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:26:15 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: In message <32A8D2B9.23FF@eden.com>, M K Ramadoss writes > Once in a while, one runs into the proverbial "bad apple" who cannot be >trusted -- and such a "bad apple" could be one who may have been a >member for many years, may be very well read, intelligent, and may even >have held offices. So I tend to start off with trust and see if the >actions increase the level of trust or decrease the level of trust -- as >a high level of trust takes a lot of time to build and quick to destroy. >Once destroyed, it is almost impossible to rebuild. > Which is why I shall be leaving the TS (but not 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: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 04:19:23 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Matriarchal Theosophy Message-ID: <19961208041920.AAA24998@LOCALNAME> >In message <32A877A7.1BD7@gnp.com>, April Joy >writes >>Men will accuse a woman of cheating but if you really look into it >>usually the man was cheating and then accused the woman of it out to >>make the woman the guilty party. [etc... snipped] "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >A brilliant post! I trust everyone will forgive me for repeating some >of it! I hope April will join us in Theosophy International, where >truth is free and equal for all, and no one can dominate anyone. I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he believes that men and women are basically equal and then mentions one way in which he believes men are superior, and that a woman can write an article in response saying that men and women are basically equal, and then mentions 23 ways that she considers women to be superior, and the same man, responding to both, can call the male author a "sexist bastard" and call the post of the female author "brilliant." Maybe the name of this list should be renamed "Crusading for Feminism." It is my understanding of Theosophy that it considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:57:58 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Matriarchal Theosophy Message-ID: On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he believes > that men and women are basically equal and then mentions one way in which he > believes men are superior, and that a woman can write an article in response > saying that men and women are basically equal, and then mentions 23 ways > that she considers women to be superior, and the same man, responding to > both, can call the male author a "sexist bastard" and call the post of the > female author "brilliant." Maybe the name of this list should be renamed > "Crusading for Feminism." It is my understanding of Theosophy that it > considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal. If you actually believe the above to be an accurate characterization of your post and hers ... well, then I guess you "win". I find it interesting, however, to see a post from the one who claims that men are superior when it comes to "logic" using that logic as a tool of *emotional reaction*. Is the above your demonstration of the elevated nature of the male perspective? You actually *counted* the points the woman made - to use in a post that seems almost completely motivated by and drenched in (gasp) emotion? Good grief. And the "balance" argument is terribly old. It arises whenever anyone attempts to alter an existing power structure. End affirmative action! It "biases" things towards blacks and women - we need "balance" instead, where everyone has an equal chance ... wonderful sentiments if one ignores the last few dozen centuri *Actual* "balance" comes about when equal weight is placed on both sides of the scales ... and if for a considerable amount of time there was *severe* imbalance in one direction ... the process of achieving "balance" must of necessity be sloppy - and may well appear at times to attemt to swing wildly from one direction to the other. You think Alan and others are being "matriarchal"? Well, if the current TS status quo is your idea of "balance" you have absolutely nothing to worry about - this list has a small number of voices that have a place to speak on this list ... but whose opinions will never be published in Theosophical publications, and which are now - as they have always been - completely marginalized and ignored by Headquarters ... who dismisses them (as you do) as cheap emotionalism. You really think the ideal of Theosophy is *balance*? You really *want* it? Then tell me why we all, men and women, according to the Three Objects, are still forming the nucleus of a "Brotherhood", and investigating the powers latent in "man". How is this perceived to increasing numbers in the world? As a "balanced" organization? As a "matriarchy" (for goodness sake)? Or as just another old thoroughly patriarchal society? OOOOOOOoooooooohhhhhhh, will you actually go further and say that this whole thing about gender neutral language is just a "fad" (I *love* that one)? Your posts seemed intended to provoke, provoke, provoke, and finally resulted in a woman responding apparently precisely in the way you believe women respond. And then act like you are some poor defenseless guy getting beat up on by feminists. I'd feel sorry for you, but that wouldn't be logical. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 01:24:35 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: How many Theosophist friends? Message-ID: <961208012434_808186733@emout01.mail.aol.com> Power is a useful thing. But why anyone would bother to want power in an organization as small and unimportant as the TS is beyond me. After all, it is important to remember that it is never so important who is speaking as who is listening and no one has listened to the TS in ages. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: 08 Dec 96 03:04:07 EST From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Universal Peace - Timeless Forgiveness - Unconitional Love Message-ID: <961208080407_74024.3352_BHT77-4@CompuServe.COM> What is a family of man? What does it mean to be brothers and sisters really? Don't brothers and sisters fight and disagree and play games in rivalry for the attention of their parents? I say attention, because sometimes children if they cannot compete for love will take all the negative attention thay can get. Even negative strokes are better than being ignored, arent' they? To be ignored is to not exist. To be in relationship is necessary for the stimulation of the senses and connection to the form world and through the form world to higher levels of the formless world. I came across another tattered and torn book on acid paper that is crumbling irrepairably. It is Annie Bessant's THE MASTERS. It is a short book with a very long chapter called: the masters - ideal and reality. It is heavier on the ideal than on any physical verification or even speculation on the masters as physical enetities. It stresses their role as ideal for the growth of our own higher faculites. Yet it seems Ms Bessant really loves the Masters in some way, even it they seem at once remote and all too close like a department store Santa. Christmas time brings all the usual feelings for me. I am sure it will come and go as before. Christmas was actually borrowed from the cult of Mithras who was supposedly born on Dec. 25. Along with the Roman holiday Saturnalia, it seemed a good idea to put the advent season around this time of year. Sagitarius is the sign of common fire which for me means common love shared on the physcial plane. What do tinsel and Chirstmas lights mean? They are attempt to display, not so much beauty or religious feeling but love - sentimental, family type - person to person common love. Not sexual, not exalted, but a kind of childlike love of feeling the air with warmth and tenderness. We have a tradition in the Houston Lodge of presenting poems and songs and meditation at our 'Christmas celebration". It seemed to get a better response than a cold attempt at a Solstice Festival. Gloria Gaynor and I will survive the shingles and the rest of this year. To come to some point, I would like to suggest, along with everybody else that it would be nice it the world were a kinder gentler place if only for a little while during the Holidays. I have spoken about feeling being primary, a priori to rational thought. This is definitely true for common man. For the Masters, I would suggest, that intuition is primary or before rational thought. In other words they experince LOVE, CONNNECTION, ONEness, before they analyze, discriminate, moralize, etc. It is not so they are irrational, but above and beyond the limitations of rational thought. They are trully thought's Master, not its slave. What is common man slave to? He thinks he wants to love, but he FEELS he must manipulate out of fear. Fear developed over lifetimes of disappointment brought about by wars, persecutions, prejudices, racism and sexual issues etc. We fear first, rationalize next, and then cover it all over with a thin layer of tinsel, Christmas lights, chocolate, gifts and hesitant hugs (sometimes). Marianne Williamson wrote the book RETURN TO LOVE based on her reading of THE COURSE in MIRACLES which is supposedly channeled material from the Master Jesus and her reflection of the insight (the Celestine Prophecy also put a POP riff on this) that charity begins at home is never out of style. It is still the same old story and fight for love and glory etc. And there is no place like home. Home is where the heart is. And the Masters have a Heart as big as all outdoors. What an ideal! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:05:54 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Intuition vs. Emotion Message-ID: <19961208100552.AAA3638@LOCALNAME> "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >Define intuition >Define emotion >Define compassion Maybe I should not have assumed as much standardization of ideas among Theosophists who are not members of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), as I have, since my experience with non-TS members is very limited. Still, there has to be something that all Theosophists have in common, or the term is meaningless. I believe there are 7 planes of spirit-matter that are relevant to human beings. From the top down, they are: 7) divine 6) monadic 5) spiritual 4) intuitional 3) mental 2) emotional 1) physical The higher that something is in terms of these planes, the greater value and significance it has, and the more real it is. The thought of a building is more real than a physical building, for example. The will is on the spiritual plane. Will can only directly act through the intuition, so that it is will's lieutenant, so to speak. Alice Bailey wrote a book about how intuition and intellect relate to each other, describing intuition as the fulfillment of intellect. I see no moral value to emotions, such as anger, fear, jealousy, attraction, depression, etc., since they are merely sources of information. Compassion would be inferior to thought if it were an emotion. Only attitudes can be virtues. I could be much more thorough than this, but I would rather see what kind of common ground there is with these basic ideas, first. >Clearly you are on a different planet from most of us on the list, so if >there is to be any kind of *sensible* discussion, then we must begin by >defining our terms. If you are using the above words as I have >understood them for some 50 years, then you are either talking crap or >you are a very sick person. Is it some kind of grudge you have against the Theosophical Society that makes you so snotty, rude, insulting, and intolerant towards one of its members, or is this your way of trying to "establish a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of humanity?" I have done nothing to deserve it. Maybe being involved in the Seattle Lodge of the TS has spoiled me, since, in the 3 years that I have been active in it, no one has ever been so disrepectful towards me. They have encouraged me to say what I have to say, regardless of whether or not they agree with me, and have not insulted me for doing so. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 09:03:33 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <961208090331_1287352182@emout19.mail.aol.com> Alan reproduces--> >kymsmith@micron.net writes (quoting Tom Robertson) >meaningless such words as sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, and homophobia Alan writes--> Tom is clearly crazy. All of these words have meaning, and are used regularly in context by a large section of those who speak and understand English. Richard Ihle writes--> Alan, the exact quote went like this: "How has not regarding men and women as identical caused more 'untold suffering, pain, and division' than falsely accusing others of prejudice, [(] obliterating into meaningless[ness] such words as sexism, anti-Semitism, racism,and homophobia, [)] has?" It left off a ~ness~ and clarity might have been improved by a couple of parentheses; however, I believe that if one slowed down one's reading a little, Tom's original intent might be better understood. In any case, I don't think saying "Tom is clearly crazy" is so good. It is interesting that in your response to Paul's post, "How Many Theosophist Friends?" you immediately looked at it from the point of view of your relationship with the "cultish, power-seeking minority of 'holier-than-thou' people." I don't know . . . I might be wrong, but I sort of had the impression that Paul was pondering the question in more general person-to-person terms, rather than person-to-those-in-authority terms. Why do Theosophists get to the Tom-is-clearly-crazy point so easily? Don't we want Tom as a friend? Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 12:19:03 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <32AAF887.6316@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote, as an example of the ridiculous extremes of illogic: > PMS is also cited in murder cases, which leads us to the assumption, > following your example of course - PMS and murder are correlated. If that > is true, Tom, I suspect you speak more softly around the women you may > encounter, save this garbage for your belching buddies. RE: The "PMS defense": In general, legal defenses based on a member of a disempowered group having some condition that the empowered members do not have. This, in the long run, works against the disempowered groups, as it give the impression that they are unable to control their actions, further giving the illusion that they are somehow less than human (which I feel most of us agree would be an inherently untheosophical conclusion). Even bringing up the "PMS" defense only serves to fuel Tom's opinions, because, if it works (and I do not believe that it has worked, although "black rage" defenses have), it has the backlash effect of creating an official governmental statement that irrationality in women (or, for equivalent defenses, other disempowered groups) is natural, and therefore dehumanizing the disempowered group. Theosophy has been improperly linked with Naziism in the past, forgetting the important twist that Nazi's put on theosophical ideas: They defined the Germans and Nordic peoples as the "Aryans", and called the rest of the people "subhumans". The writings of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas make it clear that, when they mention the Aryans, they refer to all of are commonly called "races" (while some say that the Australian aborigines are excluded, it must be noted that, on careful reading, all the early writings state is that the Australian aborigines have the remnants of the CIVILIZATION of the 4th root race, not necessarily the DNA). All the arguments about the term "brotherhood" are for naught if we forget the true concept behind the 1st Object. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 09:48:13 -0800 From: Art House Subject: ??? Message-ID: <32AAFF5D.3DCC@earthlink.net> Alan Bain: >>TTT S=o) >Please decipher. Take your pick: Looked at a certain way, it's tits = booby or I'm the artist formerly known as Thoa, but I would like you to call me by this symbol from now on. or T=Thoa T=Thi-Kim T=Tran S=side parted hair ==Krazy Kat eyes o=button nose )=smile TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 09:52:52 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Pacifism Message-ID: <32AB0073.7BEB@earthlink.net> Tom Robertson: >This implies that self-defense is evil, that it is better to let injustice >prevail rather than to oppose it, and that competition is not beneficial. I >see the cycle of war and peace as being based on the same principle as the >cycle of life and death, life and war being the time for growth, death and >peace being the time for rest. Competition is necessary for growth. War is >never motivated by killing, but by the benefits of killing. All of life >supports itself by killing. It is all so easy, isn't it? Logic, if one is in danger of getting attacked, one has to defend oneself; to defend oneself, one has to commit war and violence right back. This is the primary example of an inflexible thinking, in leaders and in the masses, that have caused countless suffering. Thank goodness that some (however, too few) individuals have taken the much harder road of using their creative thinking to assess the situation and to find a different solution. I think of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the protesters at Tianeman (sp?) Square. To resist by using non-violence takes much more courage than picking up clubs and guns. Where does the defending by violence end? In most cases, each side is an aggressor and a defender. In most cases, each side has a valid point that conflicts with the other side's valid point, and both will not compromise. Look at the long battles of Northern and Southern Ireland, North and South Korea, the Israelis and the Palestinians, the present situation with some African tribes, and what was North and South Vietnam. North Vietnamese leaders declared war and allied with the Communist factions (who were the only group willing to help them in their cause) because they were tired of colonialism and was more interested in the unified strong country of Vietnam, not French Vietnam, not U.S. Vietnam. War has ruined many religious, cultural, and beautiful sites in Vietnam. War has separated, tortured and killed many families. My mom recently reunited with her siblings in North Vietnam that she had not seen since she was 11, because she happened to be in South Vietnam. Looking at the photographs of her among families with smiling bouncing babies, it's hard to believe that they were enemies. War may start with a great protection of an ideal, but it quickly degrades into a vicious "I'm going to kill my enemy." I am not stating any answers, because it is all very unclear to me what the answers are. However, if more individuals would take the initiative to think of other solutions besides war, the world would be a much more peaceful world. As far as "competition being necessary for growth", are you talking about competing with oneself, in which one tries to do better each time, or are you talking about thinking that you are better or can be better than the other guy? Sure, the drive to be better than the other guy have brought us better products, better athletes, etc. However, it also brought us the viewpoint that the other guy is the enemy to be bested. I would rather think that I can do better than I did, or I would rather envision an ideal or envision someone I admired, and shoot toward that ideal. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 11:40:28 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Who's on top? Message-ID: <32AB19AC.4E21@earthlink.net> The Triaist: >Men are pawns. Men are kings. Men are bishops. But the woman, the >queen, is the most powerful piece on the board. (obvious allegory). The woman >protects the man for the man is weak, and may only move one space at a time. >The knights, bishops, and pawns aren't there to protect the king, they are >there to make way for the queen. Make way for the kill. For ages, the woman >has been considered the manipulator, the protector, the power. The man is >simply the figurehead. IMHO, of course. Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo. I feel so sorry for you men. Try growing some ovaries, then maybe you can join us women in being the manipulator, the protector, and the power. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:00:15 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <961208090331_1287352182@emout19.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes >Don't we want Tom as a friend? As far as I personally am concerned, not while he demeans and insults the intelligence of women on and off the lists, the defence of which type of thinking produced one of the most underhand and vicious behind- the-scenes hate campaigns I have ever experienced at the hands of "theosophists". My crime? supporting gender-incusive language and genuine equality between the sexes by my support for Theosophy International, which was described as a "Rival organisation." Sorry. 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, 8 Dec 1996 22:18:42 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: In message <32AAF887.6316@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes > All the arguments about the term "brotherhood" are for naught if we >forget the true concept behind the 1st Object. Amen 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, 10 Dec 1996 02:15:59 +0000 From: Alan Subject: WELCOME Message-ID: Theosophy International welcomes Art House (Mark and Thoa)! When you gotta grow, you gotta grow :-) 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, 9 Dec 1996 01:06:52 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <19961209010649.AAA17202@LOCALNAME> JRC wrote: >On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: >> I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he believes >> that men and women are basically equal and then mentions one way in which he >> believes men are superior, and that a woman can write an article in response >> saying that men and women are basically equal, and then mentions 23 ways >> that she considers women to be superior, and the same man, responding to >> both, can call the male author a "sexist bastard" and call the post of the >> female author "brilliant." Maybe the name of this list should be renamed >> "Crusading for Feminism." It is my understanding of Theosophy that it >> considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal. >If you actually believe the above to be an accurate characterization of >your post and hers ... well, then I guess you "win". If anyone considers this to be an inaccurate "characterization" of her post and mine, I would be interested in knowing the basis for their opinion, since my "characterization" seems pretty straightforward to me. The reference to "winning" implies a personal approach that I do not share. I am interested in honest, substantive discussion, not "winning." >I find it >interesting, however, to see a post from the one who claims that men are >superior when it comes to "logic" using that logic as a tool of *emotional >reaction*. Logic neither rules out, nor is ruled by, emotion. How was my response ruled by emotion? Were my facts inaccurate? >Is the above your demonstration of the elevated nature of the >male perspective? You actually *counted* the points the woman made - to >use in a post that seems almost completely motivated by and drenched in >(gasp) emotion? Good grief. A point is "drenched in emotion" if it does not offer facts or substance, but gets personal instead. My post offered facts, which no one has disputed. Alan responded, and continues to respond, to my expression of my honest opinions with personal insults. I reserve the right to point out such untheosophical behavior. >if for a considerable >amount of time there was *severe* imbalance in one direction ... the >process of achieving "balance" must of necessity be sloppy - and may well >appear at times to attemt to swing wildly from one direction to the other. The idea that attempts to arrive at balance require apparently imbalanced efforts makes sense. Regardless of its destructive effects, that might give more legitimacy to feminism that I had thought. It reminds me of a radio talk show I was listening to immediately after the Crime Bill was passed in 1994, outlawing some semi-automatic weapons. The host was ranting and raving about how they had sold out our 2nd Amendment rights, but my response was that the optimal balance is some point between outlawing all weapons and allowing all weapons, and that this bill, in spite of its heading in the direction of outlawing all weapons, may have actually brought us closer to the optimal balance. >You think Alan and others are being "matriarchal"? Well, if the current TS >status quo is your idea of "balance" you have absolutely nothing to worry >about - this list has a small number of voices that have a place to speak >on this list ... but whose opinions will never be published in >Theosophical publications, and which are now - as they have always been - >completely marginalized and ignored by Headquarters ... who dismisses them >(as you do) as cheap emotionalism. Responding to an honest opinion with a personal attack IS cheap emotionalism. Such responses should be marginalized. I hope Headquarters continues to ignore them. >Your posts seemed intended to provoke, provoke, provoke, and finally >resulted in a woman responding apparently precisely in the way you believe >women respond. If the definition of "intending to provoke" is "being willing to say what one honestly believes, without being concerned with how popular it is," then my posts were intended to provoke. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:06:57 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Competition Message-ID: <19961209010649.AAB17202@LOCALNAME> Art House wrote: >Tom Robertson: >>This implies that self-defense is evil, that it is better to let injustice >>prevail rather than to oppose it, and that competition is not beneficial. I >>see the cycle of war and peace as being based on the same principle as the >>cycle of life and death, life and war being the time for growth, death and >>peace being the time for rest. Competition is necessary for growth. War is >>never motivated by killing, but by the benefits of killing. All of life >>supports itself by killing. >It is all so easy, isn't it? Logic, if one is in danger of getting >attacked, one has to defend oneself; to defend oneself, one has to >commit war and violence right back. I was also referring to how our bodies kill bacteria, how washing bedsheets kills dust mites, and how breathing kills microbes. "Ahimsa" is an impossible dream. >War may start with a great protection of an >ideal, but it quickly degrades into a vicious "I'm going to kill my >enemy." I am not stating any answers, because it is all very unclear to >me what the answers are. However, if more individuals would take the >initiative to think of other solutions besides war, the world would be a >much more peaceful world. As in seemingly every area of life, there are two sides to this question. Preparing for war both deters war and encourages potential enemies to be able to defend themselves, also. As the book of Ecclesiastes says, there is "a time for war and a time for peace." I shudder to think of how much worse this world would be if the most moral country had not also been the most powerful. If Japan, Germany, or the Soviet Union had developed the atomic bomb first, would they have used it with as much restraint as the United States did? >As far as "competition being necessary for >growth", are you talking about competing with oneself, in which one >tries to do better each time, or are you talking about thinking that you >are better or can be better than the other guy? Both. The greatest value that the most advanced individuals in the history of humanity have imparted is not their teachings, but their examples. But for competition, examples of superiority would have no value. I doubt if there would be any meaning to competing with oneself if it were not for others who are regarded as superior, with whom one can compete. It is an abuse of competition that seeks to hurt others rather than to better oneself. >I would rather think that I can do >better than I did, or I would rather envision an ideal or envision >someone I admired, and shoot toward that ideal. Without others to admire, I doubt if ideals could be envisioned. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 21:14:04 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Who is the True Theosophist? Message-ID: <32AB75EC.3762@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Annie Besant wrote that all who believe in the Brotherhood of Humanity > >belong in the Theosophical Society, and those who do not believe are > >still our brothers (in a genderless sense, of course). Mr. Robertson is > >my brother, but I believe that he clearly demonstrates his disagreement > >with the 3 Objects, in any of the methods of stating them, in his > >message. > > I fail to see how forming a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of > humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color, means > that one must consider men and women to be identical. I would say just the > opposite, since masculine and feminine are examples of Yin and Yang, which > are literally as different as are night and day. But Yin and Yang are equal, and your writings show an opinion that men are superior to women. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 21:24:55 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: <32AB7877.786D@sprynet.com> April Joy wrote: > > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, > > both physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring > > men to be the leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of > > injustice, which is distinct from domination. > > First of all most women *do not want* to be dominated by a man, that is > a myth made up by men. For a while this myth was force fed to woman > from child hood to adulthood. Then women grew up and > realized this wasn't true. Women are capable of making logial decisions. > Women are strong and capable of taking care of ourselves physically, > financially. Please learn to quote properly. The statement you attributed to me is actually a statement with which I was DISAGREEING. And rather strongly at that. By putting my name on the quote, you are not only ascribing words to me that I did not originate, you are ascribing an opinion to me that I find to be extremely distasteful, and potentially damaging to my reputation. (note: THIS IS NOT A THREAT OF LEGAL RETALIATION OF ANY KIND, JUST A STATEMENT OF HOW CARE IS NEEDED WHEN PUTTING SOMEBODY'S NAME ON A STATEMENT.) Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:13:05 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: The friendship thing Message-ID: <199612090413.VAA14581@snowden.micron.net> Richard writes: >Don't we want Tom as a friend? I was going to leave this alone; but as usual found I could not. . .so here we go. Richard, if a man came up to you, announced your [wife, daughter, girlfriend, Mother] was 'inferior' to them, would you want them as your friend? If the question is being asked in the larger sense, I can only ask you to once again notice how many people are leaving the TS. What are the reasons they stated - is not one of them this very issue? The Theosophical Society will soon be the exclusive club it really wants to be. Tom has already stated that he's glad the TS doesn't listen to people who do not think as he does - at least Tom has found happiness there. Tom's attitude makes not only women look bad, but makes men look bad. Fortunately, there are men on this list who let neither notion escape them. . . I realize everyone is welcome in T/theosophy, as it absolutely should be, but it does not mean we have to accept 'intentional' harm others desire to cause. It is not those who fight for the equality of humanity who are the "unfriendly" ones, Richard, it is those who fight for INEQUALITY who are. Tom has made it clear whom he desires to befriend. . .but let it never be said that, in the beginning, I (and others) weren't willing to accept him as such. I value Tom as a human being, we are of the same beginning and end, we are formed of the same matter, and are impartially loved by the same Source. Be his friend, Richard, I hope your relationship is long and good-natured. However, it doesn't take a mallet's wallop upside this subaltern's head for the realization to dawn that women need not apply to the "friendship festival" of which you speak. pax vobiscum, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 04:26:43 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Who is the True Theosophist? Message-ID: <19961209042640.AAA7238@LOCALNAME> At 02:23 AM 12/9/96 +0000, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >> Bart Lidofsky wrote: >> > Annie Besant wrote that all who believe in the Brotherhood of Humanity >> >belong in the Theosophical Society, and those who do not believe are >> >still our brothers (in a genderless sense, of course). Mr. Robertson is >> >my brother, but I believe that he clearly demonstrates his disagreement >> >with the 3 Objects, in any of the methods of stating them, in his >> >message. >> I fail to see how forming a nucleus of the universal brotherhood of >> humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color, means >> that one must consider men and women to be identical. I would say just the >> opposite, since masculine and feminine are examples of Yin and Yang, which >> are literally as different as are night and day. > But Yin and Yang are equal, and your writings show an opinion that men >are superior to women. You are, at best, confusing the distinction between equal and identical. If men and women are equal but not identical, then men must be superior to women in some ways. That I mentioned some ways in which I thought this was true, at the same time mentioning as many ways in which I considered women to be superior to men and explicitly mentioning that I considered them to be equal overall, makes me wonder what motivates you to so blatantly mischaracterize what I have written. I know little of the politics of various Theosophical organizations. One member of this list has already branded me as hateful because of my opinions and because of the particular Theosophical organization to which I belong, and this is the only guess I have for what motivates you, also. Who is the true Theosophist: one who sees differences, but overall equality, between men and women, and who is willing to discuss it rationally, or one who rejects other Theosophists as evil because of which organization they belong to and which honest opinions they have? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 03:38:03 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <19961209033801.AAA3609@LOCALNAME> "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >In message <961208090331_1287352182@emout19.mail.aol.com>, RIhle@aol.com writes: >>Don't we want Tom as a friend? >As far as I personally am concerned, not while he demeans and insults >the intelligence of women on and off the lists, the defence of which >type of thinking produced one of the most underhand and vicious behind- >the-scenes hate campaigns I have ever experienced at the hands of >"theosophists". My crime? supporting gender-incusive language and >genuine equality between the sexes by my support for Theosophy >International, which was described as a "Rival organisation." >Sorry. >Alan Translation: Since I regard Tom to have a different estimate of the general level of intelligence of a certain group of people than I have and since some people who share what I perceive to be Tom's estimate have been vicious, underhanded, and hateful, I therefore conclude that Tom must also be vicious, underhanded, and hateful, and, since the organization to which he belongs has referred to the organization to which I belong as a "Rival organisation," I, in the spirit of brotherhood and since I have no intelligent response to what Tom has said, regard him as no friend of mine, disregarding the fact that, in personally attacking him, I am guilty of the same prejudice and hate of which I accuse him, never for a moment considering the possibility that I might have misunderstood him and never bothering to find out before I distort the meaning of what he has written to be "demeaning and insulting." My crime? How could avoiding the making of distinctions, as the 2nd object says, by never making comparisons between any two individuals and between any two groups of individuals, be a crime? After all, aren't all differences between people mere illusions? It is those who do not realize that brotherhood depends on seeing the Theosophical truth that all people, and all groups of people, are identical that we must most vigorously reject. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 00:04:34 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Universal Peace Message-ID: <32ABC78E.2D23@earthlink.net> Keith Price: >For the Masters, I would suggest, that intuition is primary or before rational >thought. In other words they experince LOVE, CONNNECTION, ONEness, before they >analyze, discriminate, moralize, etc. It is not so they are irrational, >but above and beyond the limitations of rational thought. They are trully >thought's Master, not its slave. Yes! >What do tinsel and Chirstmas lights mean? They are attempt to display, >not so much beauty or religious feeling but love - sentimental, family type - >person to person common love. Not sexual, not exalted, but a kind of childlike >love of feeling the air with warmth and tenderness. Yes, I love those things, too. Whether sentiment, common love and tenderness are only common emotions not in the upper planes of spirit-matter or not, I believe they are valuable tools for helping one develop wisdom and compassion, which is Buddhi-Manas. A person who cannot even start with such sensitivity and under the delusion that insensitivity is just pure logic and manas, have a much longer way to go toward compassion, much less wisdom. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 22:27:09 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Objective Beauty Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961209092709.006a50d0@whanganui.ac.nz> At 06:25 AM 07/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > >From: Milton L. Dawes, 102362,1465 > >>And whose definition of "idea", or 'egoist', or ' >>pornography' , or 'truth' , justice, 'beauty' , etc., is the 'right' one? And >>how do we decide what we mean by ''right''? As mentioned, there seems to be no >>theoretical end to these puzzles. > >Implied in all of these questions is at least the belief that there is an >objective truth, justice, and beauty. One extreme is to equate one's own >perception with reality, which is my definition of arrogance, but the other >is to not believe there is any reality to perceive, which is my definition >of insanity. That "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is only half the >story, the other half being that objective beauty must exist in order to be >perceived. > I am inclined to think that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder as the concept of what is beautiful changes with cultures. I understand that Reality is energy vibrating at many different frequencies and our senses convert the frequencies of differentiated Reality into the objective world (maya). We then lay our values upon these frequencies and give them labels and call them 'things' or 'objects out there'. If it is our values as seen through our own unique psychological nature that say to us that something is beautiful and if my values are different from yours then we may not agree that some'thing' is beautiful but we may agree that there is a concept of beauty but we just do not agree on what constitutes beauty. It seems to me at this stage of my thinking that we can only know Reality as an individual thing for ourselves as we cannot know how Reality really is for another. Maybe at some much more refined energy level there is Truth, Justice etc but we have not the faculties to touch that level so it is still relative to our own individual knowing. Some find beauty in spiritual things and others see beauty in Nature only and so we argue about it and yet it is all a construct that our minds have evolved to deal with a world that appears objective. If in fact it is not, then we argue about labels, words, that do not represent anything. That is what g-s talks about and they agree that there is an unspeakable world of energy and as long as we talk about it and know we are only using symbols and labels to do so then we are true to the way Reality works. It is the problem of identifying the labels with the objective world we abstract from the unspeakable, that causes maya. Seems an interesting way of looking at it. All this suggests to me that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Cheers. > > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 04:28:14 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Loving Kindness/Wise Compassion Message-ID: <32AC0582.2496@earthlink.net> NAMO KWAN SHIH YIN NAMO SKILLFUL MEANS Tom, You Wrote: >I believe there are 7 planes of spirit-matter that are relevant to >human beings. From the top down, they are: >7) divine >6) monadic >5) spiritual >4) intuitional >3) mental >2) emotional >1) physical Yes, this is what we are taught. But it is a meaningless list of words if known by rote alone. Gender identity does not exist above the lower mental subplanes (rupa-manas). It is distinctly a phenomenon of personal identity and has as the scope of its activity only the three lower planes of your chart (really only #1, #2 and the lower half of #3). The Ego in the causal body, (on the arupa-manasic subplanes) does not gender identify. It is the resolution of all such conflicts and distinctions. It is also the root of all gender and the source of the ray that periodically incarnates and assumes gender as one of the potentialities and characteristics of it's newly forming psycho-sexual personality. Intuition, as a characteristic of Buddhi is also what we are taught. But we are additionally asked to know Buddhi as loving kindness and wise compassion. This knowledge is born out of the intuition of the intrinsic oneness of identity as Life and the experience of the unity of our individual identities as One in the universal. There is individuality here, but no gender distinction. In the higher reaches, there is not even individuality. I AM THAT I AM. Only when we turn earthward and personalize this intuitive understanding, do we then think thoughts of and feel feelings of "Brotherhood", "Humanity" "Love for one another", "Kindness" and "The Spirit of all Humankind". Don't forget that there ARE higher reaches of Kama (the first three subplanes) that correspond to and act as vehicles for just these feelings. When experienced they are evocative of spiritual identity in the personality rather than the merely personal. If we are going to discuss anything relating to gender, or try to assess the relative values of Nature's male and female characteristics as they appear in human personality traits, I would ask that we keep this top-down view and acknowledge the "reality" of our identity to be the sexless, birthless, deathless, eternal. >From this perspective it becomes easier to fairly judge the necessity of movement and balanced polarity in the operation of our personal natures as we evolve (mind, emotions and bodies). It also gives us clues to the nature of inter and intra-personal conflicts and hints towards resolving them. >The higher that something is in terms of these planes, the greater >value and significance it has, and the more real it is. The thought of >a building is more real than a physical building, for example. I would caution against using this justification to assume carte blanche male personal superiority. It may look favorable from your point of view, but quickly falls apart whenever you yourself get emotional OR buddhic. It's a trick of the lower mind, although the male personal ego has loved it for a very long time and worked hard to force women to subscribe. People are both mental and emotional. Neither gender can claim kama or manasic exclusivity or superiority. I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA. Every person is by definition BOTH. In fact from another point of view, the wisdom teachings have also claimed that both genders (read: ALL PERSONALITIES), considered together, can be polarized "FEMALE" in relation to the "MALE" attraction of the reincarnating Causal Ego (sexless and impersonal). This is the esoteric interpretation of the saying that "Christ is the Bridegroom coming to meet His Bride" (Ladies, don't you agree that it's about time for a female avatar? She'd straighten all this out. Or how about a Holy Couple - then we'd get gender, love, relationships and sex all in one fell swoop. Wouldn't that be nice!) The sad misappropriation and misuse of the gender identity of both Jesus and Gautama by patriarchal power systems has only confused us and obscured the true beauty of their spiritual attainment (Gauatama's faux-pas notwithstanding). It was very convenient for those who wanted to consolidate religious power to co-opt this fact to their own benefit. But in the last analysis, those guys missed the mark and fell short of both teachers. Their legacy is this cultural lopsidedness that needs correcting. I hope you've studied enough to understand what I'm trying to say. If you cling to the view that Yang is better than Yin, you'll just get stuck there and miss the realization of Tao, nevermind the experience of knowing that even the Tao dissappears. Lastly, lets try not to get too ossified in the distinctions of the planes. We are also strongly cautioned against that, and are reminded in the very first principle of the Secret Doctrine that all of these separations are maya. There is but one substance-principle. THAT is real identity. Thou art THAT! The boys are THAT, The girls are THAT. The cats and dogs are THAT. If we open inwardly to the THAT truth, the resolutions to all of these problems will become apparent. NAMO KWAN SHIH YIN NAMO SKILLFUL MEANS nuff said, Mark at ArtHouse "I am both the Tigress and Euphrates" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 04:37:57 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Three for the day/from ArtHouse Message-ID: <32AC080C.705@earthlink.net> I've made my share of errors, mistakes and broken hearts. Many's the time when I have done wrong. I'm mired in the confusion and potential of being human just the same as anybody else. I've had a few visions of inspiration - and I've seen my own shadow by becoming it's actions. All in all it's a pretty mixed bag. Yin and Yang as they say. And I believe them. _________________________ the rising star of each new day brings renewing light to waiting hearts. rekindling warmth of cosmic fire "may all remember god's desire" the hour is now at hand the cycles of cosmic change begin the holy inbreath; dissolving all of this into one; exhale, I hear all voices as one voice. ________________________ outside of personalities, beyond separate existence, wholly complete and perfectly lovely. the silent geese lost in morning fog the warmth of laughter the radiance of a simple smile soundless sound lightless light. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:20:02 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Friend to All Message-ID: I have been following with interest the discussion about who is a Friend. Let me add my 2 cents worth. As one who feels deeply about all living beings, especially the Humanity, I consider *every* living being my friend. If anyone comes and meets me, I will meet him as my friend. Anyone is welcome to come to my home as my home is open to anyone. This approach has worked very well for me and I developed it solely due to my exposure to T/theosophy. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:27:38 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Objective Beauty Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > I am inclined to think that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder as the > concept of what is beautiful changes with cultures. I understand that I ran into a very interesting anecdote. A group of explorers/missionaries ran into a tribe of people where women are not used to cover their upper body. The explorers/missionaries, in their next visit carried with them a lot of shirts and presented them to the women of the tribe. Of course the women were very happy with the gift they received. The explorers/missionaries returned with the thought they have done some good in civilizing the tribe. Lo and behold, there was a great surprise at their next visit. At the next visit, they were shocked to find that while the women were wearing their shirts, they had cut out two large round holes on the front side so that the bare breasts could show up. The tribal women (and men) thought it was beautiful. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 07:23:51 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: The Great Mother Message-ID: <199612091323.IAA20242@beasley> ---------- > Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:51:34 -0600 (CST) > From: "m.k. ramadoss" > Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 750 > > Well said. Have not you heard of the story that one of the most famous > and decorated soldiers in recent US history, Gen MacArthur was always > deferential to his mother close to being afraid of her. > > In the ancient Indian tradition, when one gives up everything that > ties one, money, power, name, fame irrevocably when one becomes a monk, > there is only one exception. His relationship with his mother. A monk is > not permitted to enter into anyone's house including that of which was > his own prior to his becoming a monk. But when his mother dies, he is > allowed to do the final rites to his mother. That bond or gratitude is > something that cannot be broken no matter. > Thanks for the great story, Doss. I had a thought that one's mother is also a biological symbol of the larger Mother, the Mother Earth, the created Universe, the material world, that gives us what is necessary to evolve and reach a higher consciousness. It has often been said that the abuse of the environment is like abusing one's own mother. Perhaps the sadness and symbolism of men who abuse women is that they are destroying the very thing that they need to make them whole. Those who abuse and deride the symbols of the feminine principle are really abusing half of their own psyche and are on a path of self-destruction. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 20:39:22 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 751 Message-ID: <199612091323.IAA20238@beasley> > Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:05:54 +0000 > From: Tom Robertson > Subject: Intuition vs. Emotion > > Is it some kind of grudge you have against the Theosophical Society that > makes you so snotty, rude, insulting, and intolerant towards one of its > members, or is this your way of trying to "establish a nucleus of the > universal brotherhood of humanity?" I have done nothing to deserve it. > Maybe being involved in the Seattle Lodge of the TS has spoiled me, since, > in the 3 years that I have been active in it, no one has ever been so > disrepectful towards me. They have encouraged me to say what I have to say, > regardless of whether or not they agree with me, and have not insulted me > for doing so. Jerry Schueler once told me that one needs a really thick skin to survive being on this mailing list. For those who subscribe and make provocative remarks that are in oppositon to the opinions of the majority of this list, I would suggest the purchase of several asbestos suits. And don't forget the hood and face mask. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 08:51:17 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612091351.IAA13653@envirolink.org> >>In some cases, this (strive for balance) is true. However, in most that >>I've encountered, women have realized this control that they have over men, >>and they use it to their full advantage. Just IMO. So, in actuality, >>society is going from one extreme to the other. Either that or it has >>always been this way. In fact, I often wonder if, for all these years, >>women have simply allowed men to believe that they are superior, by >>protesting chauvenism etc., where, behind the scenes, the women have more >>control than they know what to do with. Men are pawns. Men are kings. >>Men are bishops. But the woman, the queen, is the most powerful piece on >>the board. (obvious allegory). The woman protects the man for the man is >>weak, and may only move one space at a time. The knights, bishops, and >>pawns aren't there to protect the king, they are there to make way for the >>queen. Make way for the kill. For ages, the woman has been considered the >>manipulator, the protector, the power. The man is simply the figurehead. >IMHO, of course. > >I repeat: > >What disturbs me the most, especially since I've been on this discussion >list, is that those who declare they are (and indeed seem to be) >intelligent, and aware that we all come from the same source, and know that >things are rarely as they seem, still hold on to these harmful prejudices. >And they have the sagacity to mask these thoughts in honeyed, complex >language, sometimes even calling forth the 'divine wisdom' as ally, and in >doing so, can also skillfully evade direct accusations. I see it in your >posts and I've seen it in others. > >The question is not "Is it ignorance?" but "Is it willful ignorance?" > > >Kym I honestly don't know where you are coming from. You say that you find ignorance in my posts, yet you do not point out where the ignorance reveals itself. You also say that I call forth divine wisdom as an ally. I don't believe I have ever done that. I am searching for divine wisdom, not using it. Perhaps you thought that my allegory was inadequate? Or maybe inappropriate? You say that I hold harmful prejudices. I clearly states that in some cases women and men strive for balance and equality. I also stated that in MY experience the allegory stood true. My point was that we are the same source (not simply FROM it, as you have stated), and that, in my experience, most have not realized this and feel the need to overpower and control. Either physically, or emotionally, by demeaning or discrediting others because their opinions differ. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 08:53:55 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612091353.IAA13738@envirolink.org> Art House writes: >The Triaist: >>Men are pawns. Men are kings. Men are bishops. But the woman, the >>queen, is the most powerful piece on the board. (obvious allegory). The >>womanprotects the man for the man is weak, and may only move one space at a >>time.The knights, bishops, and pawns aren't there to protect the king, they >>arethere to make way for the queen. Make way for the kill. For ages, the >>womanhas been considered the manipulator, the protector, the power. The >>man issimply the figurehead. IMHO, of course. > >Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo. I feel so sorry for you men. Try growing some >ovaries, then maybe you can join us women in being the manipulator, the >protector, and the power. > >TTT S=o) Case #1 --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 09:14:27 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612091414.JAA15339@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >Pacifism "only" encourages aggression? I disagree, I have seen both >personal and public examples of how pacifism saved one from bodily harm and >death, lessening the aggressive emotion felt by the would-be perpetrator. >Having said that, I think there are many cases of "war" being necessary >(certainly Hitler, among others, needed to be stopped). > >The point of my statement was that too many wars have been started by men >for emotional reasons cloaked under the guise of logic. We have seen how >men do as leaders (some good, some bad), it is time to give the ladies a >chance - since history has proven that men and women are capable of both >types of thinking. Bottom line: the rationale for denying women leadership >roles (public and private) has been proven invalid. First of all, I'm not sure where you are from, but in America we vote for our leaders. The women over 18 yrs of age outnumber the men in this country. If the women were voting for women a woman would lead. Period. I have voted for women in public office on several occasions, and have encouraged others to do so as well. But I don't vote for a sex, as you have implied that I and others should do. If I did, I would be prejudiced, as you have shown yourself to be above, against men in general. Perhaps I am ignorant under the guise of intelligence by asking this, but what is the difference between what you just stated above and someone else saying that women can't do the job right? I don't see any. Perhaps before you start accusing others of being sexist, (even though i must say that the author of the article to which you replied most difinitely fits the description.), you should alleviate the problem within yourself. >Regarding your statement about philosophical vs. sematic differences, I can >only say this: the philosophical thought which claims there is a god by the >use of reason and evidence alone (design argument) is called deism; the >philosophical thought that everything is unified and that this unity is >divine is called pantheism; the philosophical thought that women are >inferior to men is called sexism; and on we can go. Not exactly true. The philosophical thought that one sex is inferior to the other is called sexism. Let's not try to confuse everybody now. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 09:25:17 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 750 Message-ID: <199612091425.JAA16144@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >While there have been some women that have had a great deal of >power, I doubt that the majority of women in recent history have been in >the >drivers seat. But there certainly is something to be said for what you >said about >the queen on the chess board. When you described woman as the manipulator, >protector and seat of power, I thought of one word - mother! >Every man that comes into the world has to be under the watch of the >most powerful woman in his live, his own momma. > >-Ann E. Bermingham Hey, wow. I never thought of that. I love your posts. It seems that instead of insulting me and tempting me to close my eyes, you open them up a little wider even when you don't agree. Excellent point. :) --- The Triaist There is nothing more satisfying than a post from a true Theosophist. (Perhaps I will be one someday *shrug*) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:48:43 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Loving Kindness/Wise Compassion Message-ID: <19961209184837.AAB16539@LOCALNAME> At 12:27 PM 12/9/96 +0000, Art House wrote: >NAMO KWAN SHIH YIN >NAMO SKILLFUL MEANS > >Tom, >You Wrote: > >>I believe there are 7 planes of spirit-matter that are relevant to >>human beings. From the top down, they are: > >>7) divine >>6) monadic >>5) spiritual >>4) intuitional >>3) mental >>2) emotional >>1) physical >If we are going to discuss anything relating to gender, or try to assess >the relative values of Nature's male and female characteristics as they >appear in human personality traits, I would ask that we keep this >top-down view and acknowledge the "reality" of our identity to be the >sexless, birthless, deathless, eternal. Keeping the "top-down" view does not require blindness to differences in the lower planes. >>The higher that something is in terms of these planes, the greater >>value and significance it has, and the more real it is. The thought of a building is >>more real than a physical building, for example. >I would caution against using this justification to assume carte blanche >male personal superiority. Whom do you feel the need to caution? If you have intended to caution me against this assumption, then you have probably bought in to Alan's and/or Kym's deliberate mischaracterizations of what I have written, since I have explicitly written, on this mailing list, that I consider men and women to be equal, but different. >I hope you've studied enough to understand what I'm trying to say. If >you cling to the view that Yang is better than Yin, you'll just get >stuck there and miss the realization of Tao, nevermind the experience of >knowing that even the Tao dissappears. If you are referring to me, then you, also, unless you have not read, or have not understood, my explicit statements to the contrary, are deliberately mischaracterizing what I have written. >Lastly, lets try not to get too ossified in the distinctions of the >planes. We are also strongly cautioned against that, and are reminded in >the very first principle of the Secret Doctrine that all of these >separations are maya. There is but one substance-principle. THAT is real >identity. Thou art THAT! The boys are THAT, The girls are THAT. Why have the words "boys" and "girls" if that to which they are referring is identical, as many in this list believe? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:56:25 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Missing the Digest Boat Message-ID: <199612111955.OAA21820@beasley> Hi folks, I have not received Digest #752 or 753 and have not been able to participate in any further discussion. If anyone has been replying to my prior email, this is the reason I have not answered. I have now attempted to switch from the digest to the regular way of receiving posts from theos-l and hope that this solves the problem. Hey, I miss you guys! -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:11:50 +1300 From: Dave Kirk Subject: Loving Kindness/Wise Compassion Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961212001150.0068d2a8@enternet.co.nz> Mark at ArtHouse wrote: >Lastly, lets try not to get too ossified in the distinctions of the >planes. We are also strongly cautioned against that, and are reminded in >the very first principle of the Secret Doctrine that all of these >separations are maya. There is but one substance-principle. THAT is real >identity. Thou art THAT! The boys are THAT, The girls are THAT. The cats >and dogs are THAT. If we open inwardly to the THAT truth, the >resolutions to all of these problems will become apparent. Well said. My sainted aunt, another quote: This is It and I am It and you are It And so is That and he is It and she is It and it is It and that is That -James Broughton :-) - - Dave Kirk New Zealand >"Once you turn it off, there are an infinite number of channels >to choose from." > -Another bus voice From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:51:51 +1300 From: Dave Kirk Subject: Re: Sexism, "Freedom of Speech" Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961211235151.0066f3b8@enternet.co.nz> Hi, Folks; I've been reading this list for long enough, so I guess it's time for a quick intro: I've been a TS member for about thirty years, but am no longer a member. However, I feel I'll always take an interest in the progress and new directions taken (if any) of the TS in general. Since I joined at age 18, my interest has been primarily in the 'mystical' processes of consciousness (Goldsmith, Krishnamurti, etc) as opposed to a more philosphical approach; in fact, this is the only way things now seem to "work" for me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Permit me to make an observation here: Tom Roberson, while I don't understand some points you are making, :-) I truly respect your right to make them. Many of us still feel threatened if others present ideas which are different from ours, and we can still react despite our comparative experience & "learning." This I understand, as I myself am continually discovering that under certain circumstances I still sprout horns. (But I can safely say that awareness brings opportunity for change.) Finally: >To refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are certain that it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallability. Though the silenced opinion may be in error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Even if the received opinion be the whole truth, unless it is contested it will be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension of its rational grounds. If there are any persons who contest a received opinion let us thank them for it. In an imperfect state of the human mind the interests of truth require a diversity of opinion. -Unknown< And: >To every shade of thought, religious, scientific, political, economic, and social; to every craze, fad, dogma, heresy, and inspiration; there should be accorded a forum, a soap box, a ton of type, and, subject to a subsequent responsibility for utterances, full liberty of speech and print. -Unknown< Dave - - Dave Kirk New Zealand >"Once you turn it off, there are an infinite number of channels >to choose from." > -Another bus voice From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:57:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: And the beat goes on ... Message-ID: In message <32ACAD4F.4B7C@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >A friend sent this to us. We thought you'd like it: > >THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN One of the best laughs I have had in ages! Thanks. 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, 11 Dec 1996 21:39:39 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: SEXISM Message-ID: <199612120249.VAA02964@ultra1> Dear Tom Robertson, What is it you are trying to tell us? I don't understand. The only thing that makes any sense to me is the phrase that we should strike a balance. I think that's what Assagolio implies as well. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:39:45 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: competition Message-ID: <199612120249.VAA02980@ultra1> It seems that there are a few new theories afoot in the land, and that perhaps we should try to cooperate with one another other to get something done, rather than try to beat out the other fellow in competition. I'm told it works. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:42:51 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: who is the true theosophist Message-ID: <199612120252.VAA03320@ultra1> Bart, you're so right. I hand't thought of it in those terms. Male and female complement each other as do yang & yin. It's the primary example. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 21:48:58 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: true theosophist Message-ID: <199612120259.VAA03925@ultra1> Tom, I think what Bart was saying is that male and female complement each other, as do yang and yin. That's different from being equal. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:08:52 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: a poem Message-ID: <199612120318.WAA06082@ultra1> This poem was printed on the cover of the December '96 "Canadian Theosophist". It's by Phyllis Olin, 1989. I thought you'd all enjoy it. WINTER SOLSTICE Once again we have made the descent into darkness; not even shadows to show us where we have been or where we are going. We are enveloped in a darkness we can't even name. Like the Astrologers of old we search the heavens for a sign; a sign of hope to light up the darkness of our night. Could a new star shine for us also? Do we dare believe in a spiritual rebirth? Light bursting forth and growing in the darkness of our world. An ancient hope is renewed again. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 20:04:55 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: To Tom Message-ID: <32AF83F7.3120@earthlink.net> Tom Wrote: >I was also referring to how our bodies kill bacteria, how washing bedsheets >kills dust mites, and how breathing kills microbes. "Ahimsa" is an >impossible dream. So what are you suggesting here, that we all say "What the Hell" and start committing drive-bys? __ >Without others to admire, I doubt if ideals could be envisioned. Somebody has to take the initiative. Just curious, what is your view on "self esteem"? It sounds like a hard row to hoe to always be trying to be as good as or better than somebody else. I question whether that will ever lead you to a significant encounter with the intrinsic worth of your own individuality. What about setting deep goals for yourself and judging personally whether or not you've reached them? __ >I would say just the opposite, since masculine and feminine are >examples of Yin and Yang, which are literally as different as are night and day. Yin and Yang are part of a larger doctrine that posits the Tao and its unspeakable referent as the ultimate identity and source of both. It is an esoteric paradox. Polarity theory needs to be placed in this context to be properly understood. Yin and Yang are parts of each other and interdepend. Their characters and relationships considered together connote the whole system. "As different as night and day and yet one and the same" is more accurate. The energy that differentiates the poles also allows them to maintain seemingly separate identities and relate in cooperation or conflict. This energy is really the identity of both and at it's root is One. As Master KH says, "The discord is also the harmony." Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:50:58 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Use of BS Message-ID: <32AF8F32.51DC@eden.com> Here is an interesting news item from an Indian Newspaper. ================================================================ 6. SOAPS AND FACE POWDER FROM COWDUNG FOR A CHANGE Lucknow, Dec. 11 Women will soon have a new range of cosmetics this time from cowdung for a Change. The cowdung processing unit set up at akola in Maharashtra by com protection movement committee, a wing of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, has been engaged in making Soap and face powder from cowdung. Mr Anna shaherij mukadam president of the committee told newsmen here that such products had become very popular among the women folk locally, the committee planned to open sale depots of cowdung cosmetics all over the country, he informed. The cowdung processing centres would re established in every state, first in Uttar Pradesh was proposed in Kanpur, he said. The centre at akola was also producing electricity from cowdung and the device would be spread to other centres also. The committee was also making oral pills from cow urine and it had given favourable results, Mr. Mukadam claimed. ================================================================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:01:37 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: > M.K. Ramadoss writes--> > As one who feels deeply about all living beings, especially the Humanity, I > consider *every* living being my friend. > > If anyone comes and meets me, I will meet him as my friend. Anyone is welcome > to come to my home as my home is open to anyone. > > This approach has worked very well for me and I developed it solely due to my > exposure to T/theosophy. > > Richard Ihle writes--> > Thank you, M.K. Ramadoss, brother and friend. > > As I said previously, you are my kind of theosophist. > > Let us be the last two hold-outs on this issue, if we must. Let others > carefully scrutinize one another for proper ideas and attitudes in order to > find friends worthy of themselves. By contrast, let us be the very models of > promiscuity in this regard: let all who apply to us get the position without > test or tardiness. Indeed, let us affix the ~friend~ label on even those who > don't apply, and let them try to tear it off if they can. . . . > > Godspeed, > > Richard Ihle Thanks for your concurrence. I recall a real experiment that took place during a time when there was a national epidemic of hostility and discrimination of anyone of Japanese origin. A survey was sent out a random sample of hotels/motels across the country asking them if a couple of Japanese origin were to show up, will they accommodate them renting rooms. About 90% responded that they will not rent rooms. A couple of Japanese origin drove across the country and lo and behold at 90% of the those who responded to paper questionairre that they will not accommodate them, did indeed rent rooms when the couple showed up. What this experiment showed was that repondents tend to respond in one way to paper question and totally differently react on a person to person basis. It is quite likely that even those that some of us may hate, will react totally differently if it is a person to person contact. Just my 2 cents worth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:04:23 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Announcing the Release of a New Ebook Message-ID: Let me congratulate the ebook publication. This is a landmark and I hope to see more such publications. MKR On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 uscap9m9@ibmmail.com wrote: > > New Theosophical Ebook > > This is to announce an ebook version of FUNDAMENTALS OF THE > ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 format. It can be > downloaded using a web browser from: > > ftp://ftp.theosophy.com/pub/theosophy/fund.pdf > > The ebook is based upon the first edition, but also includes > spelling updates, standardization of terminology, and reworking of > the diagrams into postscript drawings. A copyright has been added > to protect it against commercial exploitation, and it refers the > reader to buy a paper copy from either Theosophical University > Press or Point Loma Publications, the two publishers offering the > book in print. > > The ebook is over 3 MB in size, but it is a large book, with over > 600 pages of text. The electronic edition leaves off a table of > contents, and page headers. Footnotes are merged into the text. > Text is related to the pagination of the first edition through the > insertion of page-end markers. A "[37]" is inserted, for instance, > into the etext at the point where page 37 of the print edition > ends. This allows for citations to be made to the print edition, > regardless of how the ebook pagination changes from one release to > the next, or from one format (like PDF) to the next (like HTML). > > Any errors noticed in the book should be referred to > > editor@theosophy.com > > so that corrections can be made in subsequent releases of the > text. > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:25:00 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Answer to Doss Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > I did gain a few enemies as a result of the book, but the Amazing. Anyone who truly believes in the First Object in its widest form, cannot have enemies -- it is possible that due to strong disagreement on any issue or item, one may not like to have contact with a certain person. When you see anyone treating you like their enemy, you do not have any problem. It is the other person who has a problem. It simple shows lack of a deep understanding and application of the First Object. I had a funny development over the last several months. A member of TS with whom there were differences of opinion, suddenly changed written salutation from Brother to Mr. It did not bother me. It showed only how little this person understood the practical application of the First Object, in spite of the long membership and exposure to all the intricate details of the various classic Theosophical texts. It also reminded me of the mythology surrounding the King Ravan who abducted Sita the wife of King Rama. Ravan was a very accomplished person and figuratively had ten heads to signify his accomplishments. While nine of them were to relate to his accomplishments in various arts and sciences and other spiritual matters, the tenth head was that of a donkey. Donkey in Indian tradition is the symbolic of dullheaded and dumbness. So the haters have a problem for themselves not for those who they hate. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:57:15 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: The friendship thing Message-ID: <199612120557.WAA23034@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >Kym, if you said that you thought men and women were equal overall, but that >men were superior in X ways and that women were superior in Y ways, and >someone else insisted, as well as publicly expressed the opinion, that you >thought that men were inferior, would you want that individual as a friend? No, you are right, if a woman came up to me and said she was inherently superior to a man, I don't see a friendship forming. I have never believed that men were inferior to women. I've re-read my posts and would like you to please point out to me where you think I said "men were inferior." >If anyone deliberately and maliciously distorts the meaning of what others >say, as you have of what I have said, I hope the TS does not listen to them. I've never "deliberately and maliciously" distorted anything. You need not "hope" anymore about the TS, they don't listen. >Since I have said that I thought men and women are basically equal, and you >have so strenuously rejected what I have said, I conclude that you are >fighting for inequality. Well, then. . .Tom and Kym have made it known that they think each other guilty of the same crime. Which may make us more in agreement on a subject than anyone else on the list. The freakiness of which there are no words to describe. . . On being a friend: >You were not willing to accept me as such. You prefer falsely >characterizing what I have said. In the beginning I was, although, in all honesty, the very first post you put up made me nervous - the one before you declared emotion was a feminine weakness. As a woman, I find your thought processes very, very frightening - I've seen the harm those thoughts have caused. And so have you. You espouse ideas that spark terror in some women - "women want to be dominated" - how many times have we heard that from a man who's been arrested for rape, or for beating his wife? You have noticed, I hope, that my "sexism" charges are not saved for you, others have had them directed their way - so to think you are a specific target is in error. I assure you that you are not. And the others find me as unpleasant as you do - forgetting too perhaps, that their words (or lack of them) cut just as deeply. And I am at a complete loss as to how to get them and you to understand. . .everything has been said, all arguments (many far more elegant than mine) have been made. . .and gender-exclusive language continues to be used (in a very recent post - not yours), and sexism continues to be practiced and considered appropriate. I am aware I am running a huge risk of being labeled emotional, therefore weak, by revealing my "fear" of men who think as you do. So be it. . .I just don't know what else to tell you. . .except the truth. I'll accept the consequences. pax vobiscum, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:28:26 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Theosophist Friends Message-ID: <32AFA5E9.7C16@earthlink.net> K. Paul J., we at Art House just bought your book "The Masters Revealed." Let's see whether we'll hate you, too. We're sorry that we are going to share your book, that means less profit for you. :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:42:16 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <32AFA926.1DA7@earthlink.net> >Tom Robertson wrote: >I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he believes >that men and women are basically equal and then mentions one way in which he >believes men are superior, TTT: You stated more than "one way in which believe men are superior." You stated that "it is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both physically and volitionally." You stated that women are more emotional than men, emotion causes impulsive responses, and therefore men are better leaders. You stated that "masculinity is active and dominant, and that feminity is passive and submissive", and "men are generally predominantly masculine, and women are generally predominantly feminine"; therefore men are more active and dominant, and women are more passive and submissive. That makes how many points women are inferior? Physical strength, volition, logic, leadership, and action. We can ignore physical strength, because, as I said before, one can be a great leader from a wheelchair. However, portraying women as inferior in volition, logic, leadership and action basically tells us that if you were to consider a man or a woman for ANY job, then you would have to pick the man. In fact, under your characterization, advertently or inadvertently, a man would make a better mother. On top of that, you stated that men dominate over women, and that women like it that way. Tom: >...and that a woman can write an article in response >saying that men and women are basically equal, and then mentions 23 ways >that she considers women to be superior, TTT: April was not trying to point out women's superiority. She was trying to point out what the mindset of men, feeling like they should dominate over women, have caused. She also was debunking your theory of men's superiority by pointing out details of why men are not as superior as you supposed (by pointing out the irrational acts of some men), thereby contradicting your idea that men are more rational than women. That is a far cry from saying that women are superior. Tom: >It is my understanding of Theosophy that it >considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal. TTT: >From what I stated above regarding your points on male superiority, I don't think you were striving for balance. Tom: >If anyone considers this to be an inaccurate "characterization" of her post >and mine, I would be interested in knowing the basis for their opinion, >since my "characterization" seems pretty straightforward to me. The >reference to "winning" implies a personal approach that I do not share. I >am interested in honest, substantive discussion, not "winning." TTT: In your post in Theos-L 750, you stated that "competition is necessary for growth." In a competition, somebody has to win. Are you saying that you realize that winning is necessary for growth, but that you do not share in that approach? I can't think of a discussion more honest than someone calling something a duck if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Tom: >Were my facts inaccurate? >My post offered facts, which no one has disputed. What facts? Facts according to the world of Tom? I kept on seeing other's posts which makes yours illogical. You started out with vast, generalized statements regarding men's superiority. Now you are protesting that you were only pointing out that men and women are different, and that some of us are attacking you. Read your words again. Tom: >Responding to an honest opinion with a personal attack IS cheap >emotionalism. Such responses should be marginalized. I hope Headquarters >continues to ignore them. I'd rather have cheap emotionalism than sexism and prejudice any day. I hope that your sexist attitude would also be marginalized. In our household, we like to be honest by saying, "Who're ya foolin'? I'm callin' ya! I'm callin' ya, uh-huh!" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:46:05 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition vs. Emotion Message-ID: <961212014604_1086822035@emout09.mail.aol.com> Somebody has never read my books. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:49:57 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <32AFAAF2.624A@earthlink.net> The Triaist (from Theos-L 750): >For ages, the woman has been considered the manipulator, the protector, the power. >The man is simply the figurehead. The Triaist: >You say that I hold harmful prejudices. I clearly states that in some cases women >and men strive for balance and equality. I also stated that in MY experience the allegory >stood true. My point was that we are the same source (not simply FROM it, as you have >stated), and that, in my experience, most have not realized this and feel the need to >overpower and control. Either physically, or emotionally, by demeaning or discrediting >others because their opinions differ. TTT: Your statements are harmful in that it downplays the prejudices women have encountered and are still encountering. The scale of equality is still detrimentally unbalanced for women. Yes, women would like to say that we are powerful as far as opportunities go, but unfortunately, that is generally not the case. If you look at the corporate, political, and even the art world, you can see that it is still a boy's club. Perhaps you should have narrowed your statement. For example, "for ages," you've been around for ages? You know that the woman has been "the manipulator, the protector, the power" for that long? Instead of saying man is weak and woman is the protector, you should have stated, "My wife protects me because I am weak, and she beats me senselessly if I disagree with her." TTT: >Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo. I feel so sorry for you men. Try growing some >ovaries, then maybe you can join us women in being the manipulator, the >protector, and the power. The Triaist: >Case #1 TTT: Case #1a. You must have grown some ovaries! S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:00:14 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612120700.AAA24729@snowden.micron.net> The Triaist wrote: >I honestly don't know where you are coming from. You say that you find >ignorance in my posts, yet you do not point out where the ignorance reveals >itself. You also say that I call forth divine wisdom as an ally. No, John the Triaist, I said - sometimes - people use it to back up their theories. I quote myself - "sometimes even calling forth the 'divine wisdom'." No, I appreciate the fact you didn't use it. >Perhaps you thought that my allegory was inadequate? Or maybe >inappropriate? You say that I hold harmful prejudices. I think you do hold harmful prejudices. You say "society is going from one extreme to the other" when, indeed, women are actually losing rights they once had (abortion rights; affirmative action; the passing of the welfare bill and the ability to receive welfare: the primary economic source many women have in leaving abusive relationships; funding for Legal Aid has become almost non-existant: the primary source for poor women involved in domestic trauma, job discrimination, and sexual harrassment - and I'm NOT utilizing these for a political debate, they are just good examples of how women are not as in good a shape as so believed). You say "for ages" women have been considered the manipulator, the protector, the power. Well, if your theory is true, that makes women not only those, but damn stupid as well. Do you really believe that women, if they truly held the "power" would allow themselves to be treated as they have "for ages?" My god, John the Triaist, you say we protest "chavinism" because we want to keep men unaware of our power? That doesn't make any sense. We protest because so many women are suffering. . .look around. . .look at the Islamic countries, look at the O.J. verdict (delivered by mostly women), look at the laws which have passed recently, look at some of the interpreted divine wisdom. Do you really think all this is because women have the "power?" It is more true that some women don't use the power they have, such as voting (never, ever, should one vote for someone soley because of gender, that's insane), or speaking up when they have been violated. You imply in another post that I am sexist (quoted below). I assure you I am not, I have never believed men are inferior to women. What I am saying is the reasons for sexism are non-existant - both men and women are equal, not identical. Why those two words have been confused on this list is perplexing (and I'm not referring to you here). Kym says: >>divine is called pantheism; the philosophical thought that women are >>inferior to men is called sexism; and on we can go. The Triaist replys: >Not exactly true. The philosophical thought that one sex is inferior to the >other is called sexism. Let's not try to confuse everybody now. Yes, you are right, it means viewing either sex as inferior (although I don't think very many would have been "confused"). But I am very confused by what you said in two different posts: You say in post - Re: Sexism: (to me) "Perhaps before you start accusing others of being sexist, (even though i must say that the author of the article to which you replied most difinitely fits the description.), you should alleviate the problem within yourself." Then you say in post - Matriarchial Theosophy: (to Tom) "I wish others on this list would realize this, and rather than attack you, and call you crazy and sexist, try to understand you, while you try to understand them. (I'll point out here that I don't believe I have yet seen you DIRECTLY demean anyone on this server, but many have done this to you)." Do you wish me to be less honest, less direct? What's the difference between me saying he's sexist and you agreeing with me? And, if Tom demeans women and Kym is a woman - is he excused because he didn't say Kym specifically (directly)? And, if I demean men, and John the Triaist is a man - am I excused because I didn't say John the Triaist specifically (directly)? Actually your allegory is interesting and in the spirit of it, I can only say: Your move, John the Triaist. pax vobiscum, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:26:09 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Missing the Digest Boat Message-ID: <199612120826.BAA26235@snowden.micron.net> Ann wrote: > >I have not received Digest #752 or 753 and >have not been able to participate in any further >discussion. If anyone has been replying to >my prior email, this is the reason I have not >answered. I'm glad you put this up, I didn't get any postings either (although I get them individually, not the digest). I thought everyone just quit speaking to each other for a couple days. . . or that it was some kind of major hint. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 12 03:54:11 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612120854.DAA26735@envirolink.org> Art House (TTT) writes: >Your statements are harmful in that it downplays the prejudices women >have encountered and are still encountering. The scale of equality is >still detrimentally unbalanced for women. Yes, women would like to say >that we are powerful as far as opportunities go, but unfortunately, that >is generally not the case. If you look at the corporate, political, and >even the art world, you can see that it is still a boy's club. Perhaps Downplays? I don't understand. What about the fact that the prejudices men face have encountered and are still encountering have been downplayed for years. For instance, if I want a job as a secretary, I probably won't get it because I am a man. If I want to be a bank teller. Well, I can pretty much forget about that too. And you can't say it is because the "boss" is male and, therefore, wants a female secretary/teller. The boss i.e. manager does not often do the hiring. It is the teller supervisor (which is usually a woman) or, in the office environment, a group of three people who decide who is hired. As a man (hypothetically speaking), I have a very poor chance of getting an entry level job in an office or bank. Most men are pigs, I won't deny that. A male CEO will usually want a good-looking female secretary to work for him. This is true. This is what proves my point. A female CEO will refuse to hire a male secretary because she feels that she would be inhibiting the rise of women in the job market if she did so. Damn, I'm stuck. What do I do? I'll go complain to social services. Sure, that'll work. Bummer. Nine out of ten social workers are women. *snap*, oh well, I'll try anyway. Hmmm...nope sorry, can't help you there sir. Good luck! That's what happens to men. Enough people on this ng talk about the oppression of women. I don't think any of us have to worry about it being downplayed. I have a few more things to say however, on this subject. Particularly regarding custody battles and welfare and medical research...I think you probably know what I'm getting at. >you should have narrowed your statement. For example, "for ages," >you've been around for ages? You know that the woman has been "the >manipulator, the protector, the power" for that long? Instead of saying >man is weak and woman is the protector, you should have stated, "My wife >protects me because I am weak, and she beats me senselessly if I >disagree with her." First of all, I don't have a wife, unfortunately. And please don't take advantage of that statement like I think you may by saying something like "No wonder, with the way you feel about issues like this". And I don't need to have lived for ages to realize that women of powerful influence have been "hidden behind the political scenes" in the past. The world has access to books, diaries and biographies which allow us to "live" in those ages and see what occurred then. I am not saying that men are not guilty of sexism and domination over females. I am saying that women are not innocent of the same. We talk and talk about the issue of dominating men, but ignore the issue of manipulating women, and vice versa (dom/man). By only showing one side of the whole issue at hand, we fool ourselves in thinking we can solve the problem. In order to solve it, we need to address both issues, and stop accusing one another. Self-explanation is more efficient than general accusation. I think that if we all just stated WHY we did certain things instead of stating why we THINK others do certain things, we'd get a lot more done a lot faster. >TTT: >>Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo. I feel so sorry for you men. Try growing some >>ovaries, then maybe you can join us women in being the manipulator, the >>protector, and the power. I don't need ovaries. I don't want them. Especially if you feel that they are the sole cause of manipulation and dominance. I don't want to manipulate other people. I don't want to dominate other people. I don't want power. I am quite sure of what I don't want. I have yet to find out what I do. >The Triaist: >>Case #1 > >TTT: >Case #1a. You must have grown some ovaries! S=o) Nope, not yet:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 12 05:01:33 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612121001.FAA29408@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >The Triaist wrote: > >>I honestly don't know where you are coming from. You say that you find >>ignorance in my posts, yet you do not point out where the ignorance reveals >>itself. You also say that I call forth divine wisdom as an ally. > >No, John the Triaist, I said - sometimes - people use it to back up their >theories. I quote myself - "sometimes even calling forth the 'divine >wisdom'." No, I appreciate the fact you didn't use it. I see. I took it as meaning everyone at one point or another had called up divine wisdom as an ally. IOW - interpreted it as sometimes people instead of some people sometimes. My bad. I bow my head and apologize profusely. (No sarcasm intended) >>Perhaps you thought that my allegory was inadequate? Or maybe >>inappropriate? You say that I hold harmful prejudices. > >I think you do hold harmful prejudices. You say "society is going from one >extreme to the other" when, indeed, women are actually losing rights they >once had (abortion rights; affirmative action; the passing of the welfare >bill and the ability to receive welfare: the primary economic source many >women have in leaving abusive relationships; funding for Legal Aid has >become almost non-existant: the primary source for poor women involved in >domestic trauma, job discrimination, and sexual harrassment - and I'm NOT >utilizing these for a political debate, they are just good examples of how >women are not as in good a shape as so believed). Perhaps(no, definitely) I wasn't making myself very clear. These are present concerns for women, and should be properly addressed. But men are faced with prejudiced decisions as well. (Custody battles favored toward women; abortion rights (it's the father's child as well); welfare (which is MUCH harder for a single man even with children to recieve); Job discrimination (i.e. "female" jobs: bank tellers, secretaries/clerks, social workers); Medical research (Breast Cancer vs. Testicular cancer, for instance); and others). Men have just as much going against them as women. It's just that men, for fear of being accused of losing their "masculinity" choose not to say much about it. >You say "for ages" women have been considered the manipulator, the >protector, the power. Well, if your theory is true, that makes women not >only those, but damn stupid as well. For a woman in an abusive relationship, yes, that would be stupid. Not everyone in the world is the same. Some men are the power in the family. However, think of this. If a man slaps a woman across the face because she slapped him (which is something I would never do, but this is hypothetical) and she calls the police, the man will be thrown in jail. In court the man will testify that his wife hit him first. Ya know what happens? The judge laughs and says "Three years". That sounds like power to me. The woman has the power to make one phone call and the man is ruined for life. Now we can change this a little. Let's just say the man doesn't slap her back and calls the police on her. One of two things will happen. One, the wife will say she is sorry when the police arrive and everything will be settled. Or two, the wife will say, "He slapped me first because (place story here). The man gets hauled off to jail, etc etc. "Stupid" women do not utilize this power yes. I put stupid in quotations because I don't like the word. It is not always stupidity, but extenuating circumstances. (i.e. lack of welfare aid like you mentioned.) But I'm sure you understand where I am coming from. >Do you really believe that women, if they truly held the "power" would allow >themselves to be treated as they have "for ages?" My god, John the Triaist, >you say we protest "chavinism" because we want to keep men unaware of our >power? That doesn't make any sense. We protest because so many women are >suffering. . .look around. . .look at the Islamic countries, look at the >O.J. verdict (delivered by mostly women), look at the laws which have passed >recently, look at some of the interpreted divine wisdom. Do you really >think all this is because women have the "power?" It is more true that some >women don't use the power they have, such as voting (never, ever, should one >vote for someone soley because of gender, that's insane), or speaking up >when they have been violated. Men suffer as well. Men suffer when they are forbidden custody of their children simply because they are not the mother. Men suffer when they can't get federal aid because they are not women with children (sometimes because their children were taken away by their ex-wives). There are more homeless men than women in this country sitting out on the streets freezing to death left only with a hat to collect change in and a bottle of whiskey. Why? Because a woman can have a kid and get welfare, farm homes, and food stamps. O.J.? O.J. got off because he was famous and he had a lot of money. Some even say he got off because he was an African American and people didn't want another riot. He didn't get off because he was a man. He beat his wife (it's kind of obvious) just as many other men have. Those other men were put in jail for a long time. That was because they weren't famous football players and millionaires. They were put in jail BECAUSE they were men hitting women. Women do have a lot of power in many countries, but not all. Do they use it? Sure they do. Do you think men would deny themselves custody of their own children if they had "power"? >You imply in another post that I am sexist (quoted below). I assure you I >am not, I have never believed men are inferior to women. What I am saying >is the reasons for sexism are non-existant - both men and women are equal, >not identical. Why those two words have been confused on this list is >perplexing (and I'm not referring to you here). After reading this particular post, I withdraw any implications I have given that you are a sexist. I made the remarks I made because you seemed to place a lot of emphasis on the oppression of women while disregarding the oppression that men face as well. For instance, the remark you made directly below implied that sexism ONLY referred to the oppression of women by men, and because you wrote this, I assumed that you thought it was true. >Kym says: >>>divine is called pantheism; the philosophical thought that women are >>>inferior to men is called sexism; and on we can go. > >The Triaist replys: >>Not exactly true. The philosophical thought that one sex is inferior to >>the other is called sexism. Let's not try to confuse everybody now. > >Yes, you are right, it means viewing either sex as inferior (although I >don't think very many would have been "confused"). That remark was very cynical, and was given under the impression that you were a hypocrite. I apologize. That goes for the one below as well. >But I am very confused by what you said in two different posts: > >You say in post - Re: Sexism: (to me) "Perhaps before you start accusing >others of being sexist, (even though i must say that the author of the >article to which you replied most difinitely fits the description.), you >should alleviate the problem within yourself." > >Then you say in post - Matriarchial Theosophy: (to Tom) "I wish others on >this list would realize this, and rather than attack you, and call you crazy >and sexist, try to understand you, while you try to understand them. (I'll >point out here that I don't believe I have yet seen you DIRECTLY demean >anyone on this server, but many have done this to you)." I said that he "most definitely fit the description", I did not call him a sexist. Ok, that's close enough to it I suppose. But you have taken my comment in "Matr" somewhat out of context. I told him directly in that post that I did not agree with his statements and that they were just as sexist in nature as the ones posted by others on the ng. I agree with you that the remarks made by him were sexist, and that by making those remarks, he fits the description of a sexist. But I must say that because of your own remarks about men being oppressors while disregarding those that are oppressed, you come across as a sexist as well. (Which is why I made the comment: "Perhaps before you start accusing...") >Do you wish me to be less honest, less direct? What's the difference between >me saying he's sexist and you agreeing with me? And, if Tom demeans women >and Kym is a woman - is he excused because he didn't say Kym specifically >(directly)? And, if I demean men, and John the Triaist is a man - am I >excused because I didn't say John the Triaist specifically (directly)? I have never excused Tom from anything. I have never excused you from anything. And I have never excused myself from anything. (As I stated at the closing of "Matr.", I am not perfect, and I have the bad habit of judging others (which I am desperately trying to rid myself of)). But, starting now, I would like to excuse EVERYONE, and I would like everyone to excuse everyone, so that we may express ourselves without being demeaned and insulted. (At least as little as possible.) >Actually your allegory is interesting and in the spirit of it, I can only >say: Your move, John the Triaist. > > >pax vobiscum, > >Kym :) ...My rook is in position, Kym. The clock is ticking.:) (Wow, I had to crack my knuckles for that one.) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 12 05:02:42 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Missing the Digest Boat Message-ID: <199612121002.FAA29434@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >Ann wrote: >> >>I have not received Digest #752 or 753 and >>have not been able to participate in any further >>discussion. If anyone has been replying to >>my prior email, this is the reason I have not >>answered. > >I'm glad you put this up, I didn't get any postings either (although I get >them individually, not the digest). I thought everyone just quit speaking to >each other for a couple days. . . or that it was some kind of major hint. . . You weren't alone.:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 12 05:24:40 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: And the beat goes on ... Message-ID: <199612121024.FAA00298@envirolink.org> That was very funny. But on the serious side of things, I have a question. Was the author male or female? (John the Triaist thinks he knows the obvious answer, but it never hurts to make sure.) :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 07:40:36 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612121351.IAA22215@beasley> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > Perhaps(no, definitely) I wasn't making myself very clear. These are present > concerns for women, and should be properly addressed. But men are faced with > prejudiced decisions as well. (Custody battles favored toward women; abortion > rights (it's the father's child as well); welfare (which is MUCH harder for a > single man even with children to recieve); Job discrimination (i.e. "female" > jobs: bank tellers, secretaries/clerks, social workers); Medical research > (Breast Cancer vs. Testicular cancer, for instance); and others). Men have > just as much going against them as women. It's just that men, for fear of > being accused of losing their "masculinity" choose not to say much about it. Well, things are tough all over, aren't they? Seriously, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This morning when I woke up to the clock radio they were discussing how many children in rich and poor countries are being subjected to child labor. They were also urging Christmas shoppers to look for "Made in the USA" tags, to try to get people to stop buying merchandise from other countries that are using child labor. Men, women, children, animals, the environment. You name it, it's being abused because people are walking around in their own disturbed little worlds and can't get out of the revolving doors of their own psychological problems. Power, greed, selfishness, fear, hate, etc. is robbing all of us of the loving support we all need to make a go of it on the physical plane. No one is in this alone - it just may feel like it at times. -Ann E. Bermingham > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 07:51:58 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612121351.IAA22222@beasley> ---------- > From: John Straughn > Downplays? I don't understand. What about the fact that the prejudices men > face have encountered and are still encountering have been downplayed for > years. For instance, if I want a job as a secretary, I probably won't get it > because I am a man. If I want to be a bank teller. Well, I can pretty much > forget about that too. And you can't say it is because the "boss" is male > and, therefore, wants a female secretary/teller. The boss i.e. manager does > not often do the hiring. It is the teller supervisor (which is usually a > woman) or, in the office environment, a group of three people who decide who > is hired. As a man (hypothetically speaking), I have a very poor chance of > getting an entry level job in an office or bank. This is changing. There was an article I found the Sunday Sun-Times a few weeks ago that says that men are entering fields that were traditionally thought to be for women. It has to do with the tighter job market and the fact that some men are beginning to feel that they are better suited for those jobs. For example, men are now training to become nurses. As for getting an entry level job at a bank, perhaps you should come to Chicago and apply for a job at my bank. They've hired some young men in the past few years. I just see this as another indication that the Aquarian ideals of equality are slowly being put into action. > Most men are pigs, I won't deny that. But their curly tales are so cute. >A male CEO will usually want a good-looking female secretary to > work for him. This is true. This is what proves my point. A female CEO will > refuse to hire a male secretary because she feels that she would be inhibiting > the rise of women in the job market if she did so. Damn, I'm stuck. Do you have the statistics to back this up? Personally, I'd love to have a nice young guy for my secretary. ;-) -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 06:57:08 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Re: From Mark at Art House Message-ID: <32B01D36.5C4B@earthlink.net> TTT wrote: >K. Paul J., we at Art House just bought your book "The Masters >Revealed." Let's see whether we'll hate you, too. We're sorry >that we are going to share your book, that means less profit for >you. :-) It's true that we just got KPJ's book and are interested in reading it and the critiques that are circulating. TTT is on a good-natured roll defending womanhood, etc. and I support her in that. But I don't want to be misunderstood and therefore state for the record that I am not interested in hating anyone. I'm trying to keep an open heart and mind. Mark I was only joking. I don't believe in hating anyone, either. TTT __ Chuck wrote: >Re: Intuition vs. Emotion >Somebody has never read my books. Chuck, You sound so serious! I'd be interested in what you have to say. Can you supply me with more info about your books? Mark __ Again To Tom: >Keeping the "top-down" view does not require blindness to differences in the lower planes I agree. I was only asking for a proper context for discussion vis-a-vis the teachings you referenced. >Whom do you feel the need to caution? If you have intended to caution >me against this assumption, then you have probably bought in to Alan's >and/or Kym's deliberate mischaracterizations of what I have written, >since I have explicitly written, on this mailing list, that I consider >men and women to be equal, but different. "Equal but different" will get no argument from me. It just seemed like you were saying that men were predominantly logic oriented (manas) and women predominantly emotional (kama) in some kind of constant sense, and that according to the chart of planes and your quote that "higher up was more valuable, significant and real", this acted as a sort of proof for your assertion of male "superiority". If that's a mischaracterization, then I apologize. Maybe all you were trying to get at was that there are characteristic differences that are noticable. I think the trigger word was "superiority" In China, there is the theory about the Pa Kua. A way of understanding Tao, tai chi, yin and yang, the five elements, and the flow of life. In it's teachings there definately is a period of both yang and yin "superiority" or ascendancy as the transformations of move. Life cycles between the poles transforming from one into the other endlessly. Yet the system remains whole and in balance all the time. Is this what you were trying to get at? >Why have the words "boys" and "girls" if that to which they are >referring is identical, as many in this list believe? That's the BIG, big question, isn't it? Why indeed. ___ Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:43:45 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Re: Is There a Universe? Message-ID: <199612131544.KAA17321@jimi.vnet.net> This is in response to the question that Tom Robertson raised. It relates to the comment that Richard Ihle then make regarding Russian Dolls. (Please excuse any spelling errors or typos since I'm rushed for time in typing this out.) -- Eldon Tucker (eldon@theosophy.com) ---- The term "universe" is sometimes used to refer to the totality of all that is. But it is also thought of as a particular system of existence. When we talk about the universe starting with "the big bang", we're dealing with *a* universe, and not the totality of everything, everywhere. Purucker has a good term for the totality of all that is. He calls it "the Boundless All". The term really includes everything, both in and out of existence, both manifest and unmanifest, latent and active, seen and unseen. Another term for it might be the "multiverse", which implies that there are many, actually numberless universes, and we're talking about all of them. We have the Hermetic Axiom, "as above, so below", which implies that the big is reflected in the small. A creature in a world is a replica of the world in minature, and that creature is a world from the point of view of the smaller lives that he plays host to. This relationship is shown in the mathematical concept of the fractal. Say we have a fractal that represents a coastline. If we take a small piece of it and magnify it, we'll see the same about of detail and perhaps the same pattern represented in minature. If we take a small piece of that and magnify it yet again, we'll see still see more detail. And we can go on doing this forever. The multiverse itself can be considered a gigantic fractal-like web of life. A being comes into existence. Where? In a world. And what is that world? The already-existing lifeform of a greater being. A human Monad finds birth on the earth planetary chain. Or a particular life-atom is born in the constitution of a living human being. What we have is that we need *somewhere* to come into being. We need a living world, universe, host, heavenly man to provide us with the "living stage" on which we can, as actors, participate in the drama of life. We need a creator or Brahma to "out-breathe" us, a living source for a world in which we can come into life. A being doesn't come into life *ex nihilo*, out of nothingness, in complete vacuum. There needs to be a greater world to exist in. That being collects his "stuff", his skandhas from the already-present substance and smaller lives present in that world. The birth of that being is an "organizing force" that is the breath of life, the subtle essence that organizes these skandhas into a living being. At death, when that organizing force departs, the skandhas return to the elements and the being ceases to exist. The best model for the multiverse, then, is related to the "steady state" model. Universes come into existence and depart all the time. But there's always something present, always something in existence. Looking upward, we wouldn't exist if our world did not exist. And our world would not exist if our universe did not exist. And that universe would not exist if it did not have yet a bigger system to exist within. We can go higher and higher, but there is no top. What we have, looking at bigger and yet bigger scales, is an universal tree of life, a golden chain reaching down to us from heaven, a chain with no top, no end to it. This living tree of life, without bound, ever-dependent upon greater and yet greater beings playing host to the drama of life, is one of two key concepts, which the term "Boundless All" might summarize. The second key concept is the distinction between attributes, descriptions, concepts about that *totality* and what we may know and experience *in a particular world-system or universe*. The term "eternal", for instance, meaning existing throughout all time, or until the end of time, when applied to a particular world-system means until that system comes to its natural end. When we speak of eternal liberation through entering Nirvana, for instance, it applies to our attaining freedom from rebirth for the duration of the earth's existence, the current planetary manvantara. This existence is "until the end of time", since we're talking about finite, measured time, time as applied to a particular world-system, with a definite beginning, duration, and end. Terms like "eternal", "omnipotence", "omniscience", "perfection", "liberation", etc. can be understood and are possible of attainment in their relative form, in their form that is related to a particular system of existence like our earth. It's just not possible when considering them in their absolute form, when relating to the Boundless All. They are meaningless except when applied to a particular world or universe. These two concepts, combined with that of the composite nature of a living human being (far too much to get into in this posting), provide important keys to unlocking the theosophical Teachings. In teaching Theosophy, I'd want to see them included in the foundation of materials introduced to the new student. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:52:13 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Personal vs. Impersonal Message-ID: <19961212165210.AAA17391@LOCALNAME> At 02:21 AM 12/13/96 +0000, JRC wrote: >Gee for someone apparently upset about people misunderstanding you, you >certainly seem willing to utterly alter the meaning of the words of >others. I didn't think Alan's letter needed any translation at all. I find it significant, though, that you expressed no specific disagreement with what I said. How did I alter the meaning of Alan's words? >Perhaps we should all start "translating" your posts? You have a strange definition of the word "start." I fail to understand how I can say that men and women are equal and different, how others can deliberately mischaracterize that as meaning that I believe that men are superior to women, and how you can call that something significantly different from "translation" with a straight face. >Several people responded to your posts "intelligently", You have a strange definition of the word "intelligent," if you consider responding to an impersonal expression of an opinion with personal insults and name-calling to be intelligent. >and you ignored them I am not aware of having ignored anyone. > ... preferring to respond instead as though you are some sort of victim. You have a strange definition of the word "victim." If you said that you believed that baseball is a better game than football, and I called you a racist Nazi, would you not be a _victim_ of a personal insult? If you then pointed out how untheosophical I was in immediately responding to you in this personal way, rather than try to understand why you had that opinion, and others responded to that by telling you to just quit feeling sorry for yourself, would you not consider their criticizing you for calling attention to such behavior on my part and their _not_ criticizing me for being so rude to you rather untheosophical itself? And on what basis do assume that I am motivated by self-pity, rather than the general good of the discussion, in pointing out the fact that insults imply an emotional, unintelligent, irrational response that lacks substance or details? If Fred Goldman said "my son was murdered," would you tell him "facts are irrelevant. Quit seeing yourself as a victim?" Or, since you have voiced no disapproval of name-calling, would you call him a jerk and a creep, and then claim that you were a good Theosophist in doing so? You want an intelligent discussion? Then start making intelligent >points *backed by some sort of argument or evidence* - as that is what >generally constitutes "intelligent" discussion. For instance, you made the >almost preposterous statement that most women want to be dominated by men. I said that, in most marriages, the man is more of a leader than the woman is. No one responded to that by disagreeing with it. Although examples of dominant women were mentioned, implying a complete straw man (or, to avoid being sexist, should this be "straw person?") argument, there was no sign of anything like "I disagree; I believe that which gender is more dominant is closer to equal." I was simply labelled a "sexist bastard." And now you are saying that _I_ am responsible for the lack of intelligent discussion, implying that name-calling is not nearly as destructive to it as is believing that there are differences between men and women! >I noticed a couple of people *did* >decide to do engage the topic - asking for some sort of evidence and >telling you that you could in no way know what "most" women "want" - in >fact much of your writing seems simply full of huge generalizations with >almost no foundation or evidence - however, you responded by giving a list >of people some sort of Stats 101 lecture (gee, you mean the behaviour of >many can *really* be mostly estimated from the behaviour of a smaller set? >What a revelation!). I pointed that out in response to someone who asked me if I knew most women, implying that I should not make general statements about them until I did. For that individual, assuming he understood it, my "Stats 101 lecture" _was_ a revelation. You seem to believe that _I_ am responsible for causing some kind of controversy. Suppose I had said that I believed that Mozart was a better musician than is LL Cool J, and that someone else had said that LL Cool J was actually better. What, besides someone feeling threatened and insecure by the expression of a contrary opinion, would prevent the issue from being discussed to any length in a friendly, cordial way? The Theosophical ideal is to respond to the impersonal expression of an opinion with a scientific, open mind which seeks to understand, _not_ with a closed-minded, personal attack which seeks to discourage dissent. >What this list *does* do over time is help people refine their thoughts, >achieve a far greater precision in expression This is one of my primary motives for being involved in such discussions, but I fail to see how discouraging dissent by transforming the discussions into personal battle grounds does that. >maybe, just maybe, you >should perhaps take a day and sit back, and consider perhaps whether some >of your ideas might actually be *wrong*? Maybe someday I will consider the possibility that I might be wrong about something. But, for now, the more I see that the best response anyone has to some of my ideas is to insult me, the more convinced I am of their truth. >On this list we've seen many come and go - and almost everyone that has >stayed in the long run has undergone a blasting, the alchemical hot-fire, >and has become rather more open and fluid ... but we have had many come on >the list, assert a bunch of rigid ideas, be completely closed to altering >their own perspective, start complaining loudly about how mean and nasty >everyone is, and leave after a month or two in a snit, or a huff, or with >the self-justification that they were badly misunderstood victims who were >just innocently trying to raise points. It is almost a syndrome, the >stages are so predictable ... Expressing oneself in facts and in substance, inviting detailed criticism, as I have done, is evidence of flexibility and open-mindedness. Expressing oneself in personal insults, blatantly mischaracterizing what others say, is evidence of rigidity and closed-mindedness. That this has happened before is significant. I see no evidence of you having an open mind to the possibility that such personal confrontations are the primary responsibility of those in this list who prefer hostility to discussion. >But get this ... you are *not* being victimized on this list - rather, >offered an opportunity to refine your own thought ... and the ones >blasting you the hardest are, whether you grasp it or not, your best >*spiritual* allies. Maybe those who "blast away" need more allies. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:52:18 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: SEXISM Message-ID: <19961212165210.AAB17391@LOCALNAME> At 03:01 AM 12/12/96 +0000, Liesel wrote: >Dear Tom Robertson, > >What is it you are trying to tell us? I don't understand. The only thing >that makes any sense to me is the phrase that we should strike a balance. I >think that's what Assagolio implies as well. Liesel, I do not see how I am saying anything different from what you said in the following article of a few days ago: >To repeat what I've written on theos-l several times before, I think what we >should come to is a male god (essence) and a female god (essence) ruling >together. On earth, I think, as does Roberto Assagioli, that instead of >classifying what male traits are and what female traits are, which greatly >overlaps anyway when you start looking at individual people, I think that >every human being should contribute to the common good whatever his/her best >abilties allow him/her to contribute. Some women are good business people >and some men enjoy being house husbands. I used to know a man who was very >nurturing, whether with his prize roses, or his patients. He was also very >gentle, but let me assure you he was unmistakably a man. The work to be >done, whether in society or in a marriage, should be done by whoever enjoys >it most, and if it's not enjoyable, it should be shared. >Liesel The implications in this article, with which I agree, are just as "sexist" as anything I have written. The phrase "some women are good business people" implies that, in general, men are better business people than women, which seems obvious to me. The phrase "some men enjoy being house husbands" shockingly implies that more women enjoy housework than do men. Suggesting such a inegalitarian concept on such an enlightened forum as this, populated by many people who consider making distinctions and comparisons to be the worst evil, took a lot of courage, that it is so obviously true notwithstanding. And what a sexist implication it is to mention that you actually knew a nurturing man, as if they were hard to find! After all, men and women are identical, and, since there is at least one nurturing man in the world, that, following the logic of some of those who are more enlightened in this group, means that men are just as nurturing as are women. Again following more current logic, since you imply that you believe that women are generally more nurturing than are men, you must mean that women are better than men. Anyway, to get back to reality, I am not saying anything very profound. If the idea that men and women are different is news to anyone, then they could probably not be convinced that the sky was blue on a sunny day. "Without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color" does not mean that all groups of people are identical, except possibly potentially. By now, I am far more concerned with how those who call themselves Theosophists are trashing the name by their behavior. If there is any one thing that Theosophy stands for, it is for open, free, rational discussion in a spirit of brotherhood, which is destroyed by personally attacking those who disagree. Just the emphasis of some individuals in this list is amusing. The ugliness of spirit expressed in personal attacks is sanctioned by silence in response, but whoever believes that men are superior to women, or that women are superior to men, in any way, is not a true Theosophist. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:52:22 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Skandhas Message-ID: <19961212165210.AAC17391@LOCALNAME> In a TS meeting last night, we discussed the skandhas. The 5 skandhas were said to be: 1) form 2) feelings 3) perceptions 4) volitions or impulses 5) consciousness These 5, according to Buddhist tradition, are "real," and the individual is regarded as "unreal." There is not an individual that is conscious. There is only consciousness. This makes little sense to me. I can understand how anything that changes is not real, but I do not see how the processes which are known as skandhas do not also change. When I hear the words "illusory" or "unreal," I tend to think it means "imaginary." But just because objective reality changes does not mean that it does not exist. Consciousness requires there to be a subject to be conscious and an object of which to be conscious. Free will was also discussed. If there is no individual, there is no free will, which I also find hard to swallow, since, if there is no free will, there is no relevance. If alternatives were not valued uniquely, so that the best alternative could be chosen, action would be impossible, since action is based on a perception of gain. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:07:00 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <32B049AE.776A@earthlink.net> The Triaist: >For instance, if I want a job as a secretary, I probably won't get it >because I am a man. If I want to be a bank teller. Well, I can pretty much >forget about that too. >And I don't need to have lived for ages to realize that women of powerful >influence have been "hidden behind the political scenes" in the past. TTT: I see a theme going here. First, we are powerful because we get to be secretaries and tellers, then we are powerful because we get to be behind the scenes. Wow! I can feel that power now! I agree that discrimination either way is unfair. However, there is discrimination in the fact that women will get unhesitatingly hired as secretaries, nannies, and bank tellers, yet few women will get hired as executives and loan officers. Why would I want to be a First Lady when I can be a President? My point is not to demean these jobs, but to point out that there are places, and high level places at that, that women do not have easy access to. In fact, I had a friend who is a bank executive (yes, I can have chauvinistic friends). He was in the process of hiring a loan officer. He confided to me that he preferred to hire a man because women are no fun, that they are nitpicky and have no sense of humor (and no joke about that's because he knows me). He doesn't want anyone to crunch his balls for jokes about women. He can't hang out with a woman as he would with a man. In complaining about a male superior, he would make general statements about his conduct. In complaining about a female superior, he would say that she is a bitch, that she must have PMS. The Triaist: >I am not saying that men are not guilty of sexism and domination over females. >I am saying that women are not innocent of the same. >In order to solve it, we need to address both issues, and stop accusing one another. TTT: True, true. We address it as it comes, right? If Tom had start out with a statement, "Why can't men have equal opportunity in secretarial jobs?" I would say, "Yeah, they should!" Unfortunately, for him and the general nervousness of some men on this list, he did not. I was mainly pointing out the flaws in his argument. Maybe I should have toned down my calling him a sexist. However, I also believe in being honest by calling someone something he shows himself to be. Too many wrongs have been covered up in pretty words. For all the complaints about the younger generation, I really like the fact that honesty and frankness is "in." In the past (and probably present), people have been nice and polite as they refuse housing and job opportunities to minorities and women. If someone were to think me inferior because of my race or sex, I would rather they say it to my face than behind my back. That way, it is out in the open for debate. That is where I am thankful to Tom. I may argue against his opinions, but I give him accolades for being brave enough to let us know what he thinks. The arguments that we are being too nasty to Tom reminds me of the picketers for freeing Harry Woo, an activist being jailed in China for infiltrating the Chinese prison system, because he documented that political prisoners' rights were being violated. The picketers were shouting and jumping onto the stage with chants, "Free Harry Woo!" during the celebration of trade between China and San Francisco. The host of the show told the picketers that they were being too loud, obnoxious, and unfair to those poor people who spent long hours preparing for the show. Similar complaints were made against African-Americans marching for their rights, anti-war protesters, and the feminist movement. I guess protesting is not a NICE job. The Triaist: >TTT: >>Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo. I feel so sorry for you men. Try growing some >>ovaries, then maybe you can join us women in being the manipulator, the >>protector, and the power. >I don't need ovaries. I don't want them. Especially if you feel that they >are the sole cause of manipulation and dominance. TTT: I certainly do not feel that! I was being tongue in cheek regarding your statement. M.K. Ramadoss: >A couple of Japanese origin drove across the country and lo and behold at >90% of the those who responded to paper questionairre that they will not >accommodate them, did indeed rent rooms when the couple showed up. What >this experiment showed was that repondents tend to respond in one way to >paper question and totally differently react on a person to person basis. >It is quite likely that even those that some of us may hate, will react >totally differently if it is a person to person contact. TTT: True. I don't hate anyone, not even Tom. If Tom were to show up at my place, I would give him a room too. If he were to say the same things as he did on this list, we would have a long debate, I would feed him, then send him to his room. Dave Kirk and quotations: >To refuse a hearing to an opinion because they are certain that it is false is to assume that their certainty is the same as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallability. Though the silenced opinion may be in error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Even if the received opinion be the whole truth, unless it is contested it will be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension of its rational grounds. If there are any persons who contest a received opinion let us thank them for it. In an imperfect state of the human mind the interests of truth require a diversity of opinion. -Unknown< And: >To every shade of thought, religious, scientific, political, economic, and social; to every craze, fad, dogma, heresy, and inspiration; there should be accorded a forum, a soap box, a ton of type, and, subject to a subsequent responsibility for utterances, full liberty of speech and print. -Unknown< TTT: Yes, yes, yes and yes. I prefer Tom expressing what he thinks rather than holding it in while still believing it. He has a right to express his views with honesty. The respondents to his views have a right to argue against or for his views in as honest a way as they like. And some of the people on this list have the right to express that they're sick of this debate. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:02:41 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Theosophist Friends Message-ID: <199612121810.NAA12388@beasley> ---------- > From: Art House > > K. Paul J., we at Art House just bought your book "The Masters > Revealed." Let's see whether we'll hate you, too. We're sorry that we > are going to share your book, that means less profit for you. :-) When I read this post, I heard in my mind the words being said in many voices. Sort of like the Borg? Anyway, love or hate him, KPJ's has an article in the latest issue of Gnosis magazine which I haven't gotten around to reading yet. But I did appreciate your short piece on the Bahai and their problems with the Internet. It was truly enlightening. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:10:55 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612121810.NAA12399@beasley> ---------- > From: Art House > TTT to T. Robertson: > You stated more than "one way in which believe men are superior." > You stated that "it is natural for men to dominate women, since they are > stronger, both physically and volitionally." You stated that women are > more emotional than men, emotion causes impulsive responses, and > therefore men are better leaders. You stated that "masculinity is > active and dominant, and that feminity is passive and submissive", and > "men are generally predominantly masculine, and women are generally > predominantly feminine"; therefore men are more active and dominant, and > women are more passive and submissive. On top > of that, you stated that men dominate over women, and that women like it > that way. > I've resisted responding to the dominance thing, but I can resist no longer. Every time I read that infamous quote, that women are just dying to be dominated by some big strong hunky guy, this wall of romance novels at the local bookstore pops into my mind. We being so theosophical and intellectual here, we may have missed the treat of seeing the endless covers of big, strong manly men hovering over some withering female, who is practically fainting from the notion that he is about to give it to her. I believe that if someone *wants* to believe that women want to be dominated, they are entitled to their own personal sexual fantasies. But we all might not share the same fantasies. I'm sure Chuck's friends that are into S&M would be more knowledgeable and have much more to say about this than I ever could. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 09:27:15 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612091427.JAA16279@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >kymsmith@micron.net writes >>The question is not "Is it ignorance?" but "Is it willful ignorance?" > >Guess where I put my money ... > >Alan In the little bucket next to the bell ringer? :P --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:22:27 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: <961209180938_1953231672@emout07.mail.aol.com> Doss, Good for you. Watching the threads on this list I think there is a new fashion in theosophy land, seeing how many enemies one can make with a single posting. Either that or everyone is going stark, staring nuts. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 16:22:42 -0800 From: Art House Subject: And the beat goes on ... Message-ID: <32ACAD4F.4B7C@earthlink.net> A friend sent this to us. We thought you'd like it: THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN Let's say a guy named Roger is attracted to a woman named Elaine. He asks her out to a movie; she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A few nights later he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy themselves. They continue to see each other regularly, and after a while neither one of them is seeing anybody else. And then, one evening when they're driving home, a thought occurs to Elaine, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: "Do you realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?" And then there is silence in the car. To Elaine, it seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself: Geez, I wonder if it bothers him that I said that. Maybe he's been feeling confined by our relationship; maybe he thinks I'm trying to push him into some kind of obligation that he doesn't want, or isn't sure of. And Roger is thinking: Gosh. Six months. And Elaine is thinking: But, hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of relationship, either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so I'd have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we are, moving steadily toward ... I mean, where are we going? Are we just going to keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together? Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really even know this person? And Roger is thinking: ... so that means it was ... let's see .February when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the shop last, which means ... lemme check the odometer ... Whoa! I am way overdue for an oil change here. And Elaine is thinking: He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe I'm reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our relationship, more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed -- even before I sensed it -- that I was feeling some reservations. Yes, I bet that's it. That's why he's so reluctant to say anything about his own feelings. He's afraid of being rejected. And Roger is thinking: And I'm gonna have them look at the transmission again. I don't care what those morons say, it's still not shifting right. And they better not try to blame it on the cold weather this time. What cold weather? It's 87 degrees out, and this thing is shifting like a goddamn garbage truck, and I paid those incompetent bastards $600! And Elaine is thinking: He's angry. And I don't blame him. I'd be angry, too. God, I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I can't help the way I feel. I'm just not sure. And Roger is thinking: They'll probably say it's only a 90- day warranty. That's exactly what they're gonna say, those scumballs. And Elaine is thinking: maybe I'm just too idealistic, waiting for a knight to come riding up on his white horse, when I'm sitting right next to a perfectly good person, a person I enjoy being with, a person I truly do care about, a person who seems to truly care about me. A person who is in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl romantic fantasy. And Roger is thinking: Warranty? They want a warranty? I'll give them a goddamn warranty. I'll take their warranty and stick it right up their .. "Roger," Elaine says aloud. "What?" says Roger, startled. "Please don't torture yourself like this," she says, her eyes beginning to brim with tears. "Maybe I should never have ... Oh God, I feel so .." (She breaks down, sobbing.) "What?" says Roger. "I'm such a fool," Elaine sobs. "I mean, I know there's no knight. I really know that. It's silly. There's no knight, and there's no horse." "There's no horse?" says Roger. "You think I'm a fool, don't you?" Elaine says. "No!" says Roger, glad to finally know the correct answer. "It's just that ... It's that I ... I need some time," Elaine says. (There is a 15-second pause while Roger, thinking as fast as he can, tries to come up with a safe response. Finally he comes up with one that he thinks might work.) "Yes," he says. (Elaine, deeply moved, touches his hand.) "Oh, Roger, do you really feel that way?" she says. "What way?" says Roger. "That way about time," says Elaine. "Oh," says Roger. "Yes." (Elaine turns to face him and gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him to become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it involves a horse. At last she speaks.) "Thank you, Roger," she says. "Your welcome" says Roger. Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted, tortured soul, and weeps until dawn, whereas when Roger gets back to his place, he opens a bag of Doritos, turns on the TV, and immediately becomes deeply involved in reruns. A tiny voice in the far recesses of his mind tells him that something major was going on back there in the car, but he's pretty sure there is no way he would ever understand it, and so he figures it's better if he doesn't think about it. (This is also Roger's policy regarding world hunger.) The next day Elaine will call her closest friend, or perhaps two of them, and they will talk about this situation for six straight hours. In painstaking detail, they will analyze everything she said and everything he said, going over it time and time again, exploring every word, expression, and gesture for nuances of meaning, considering every possible ramification. They will continue to discuss this subject, off and on, for weeks, maybe months, never reaching any definite conclusions, but never getting bored with it, either. Meanwhile, Roger, while playing racquetball one day with a mutual friend of his and Elaine's, will pause just before serving, frown, and say: "Norm, did Elaine ever have a horse?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:09:42 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 751 Message-ID: <961209180941_741662265@emout09.mail.aol.com> Ann, Aluminized fire suits like they use at car races work real well too. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 22:21:49 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The friendship thing Message-ID: <32ACD74D.4F83@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Richard writes: > > >Don't we want Tom as a friend? > > I was going to leave this alone; but as usual found I could not. . .so here > we go. > > Richard, if a man came up to you, announced your [wife, daughter, > girlfriend, Mother] was 'inferior' to them, would you want them as your friend? Tom is my brother. I do not, however, believe that the Theosophical Society is the right place for him at this time. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 22:29:36 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Who is the True Theosophist? Message-ID: <32ACD920.52F8@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > You are, at best, confusing the distinction between equal and identical. If > men and women are equal but not identical, then men must be superior to > women in some ways. That I mentioned some ways in which I thought this was > true, at the same time mentioning as many ways in which I considered women > to be superior to men and explicitly mentioning that I considered them to be > equal overall, makes me wonder what motivates you to so blatantly > mischaracterize what I have written. You are confusing a combination of statistical correlations and wishful fantasy with universal truth. Let me give you an example: Statistically speaking, most men are physically stronger than most women. The strongest men are physically stronger than the strongest women. However, by your logic, this means that any man is stronger than any woman, and there is something inherently wrong with a given woman being stronger than a given man. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:00:28 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: <961209230026_1354641941@emout05.mail.aol.com> M.K. Ramadoss writes--> As one who feels deeply about all living beings, especially the Humanity, I consider *every* living being my friend. If anyone comes and meets me, I will meet him as my friend. Anyone is welcome to come to my home as my home is open to anyone. This approach has worked very well for me and I developed it solely due to my exposure to T/theosophy. Richard Ihle writes--> Thank you, M.K. Ramadoss, brother and friend. As I said previously, you are my kind of theosophist. Let us be the last two hold-outs on this issue, if we must. Let others carefully scrutinize one another for proper ideas and attitudes in order to find friends worthy of themselves. By contrast, let us be the very models of promiscuity in this regard: let all who apply to us get the position without test or tardiness. Indeed, let us affix the ~friend~ label on even those who don't apply, and let them try to tear it off if they can. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 09:57:35 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612091457.JAA19285@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>Don't we want Tom as a friend? > >As far as I personally am concerned, not while he demeans and insults >the intelligence of women on and off the lists, the defence of which >type of thinking produced one of the most underhand and vicious behind- >the-scenes hate campaigns I have ever experienced at the hands of >"theosophists". My crime? supporting gender-incusive language and >genuine equality between the sexes by my support for Theosophy >International, which was described as a "Rival organisation." > >Sorry. > >Alan I think that it all depends on what the primary goal is. Does understanding come before judging or does judging come before understanding. Or should judging even come into play? Just a thought.:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 10:03:14 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: <199612091503.KAA20016@envirolink.org> Bart Lidofsky writes: >April Joy wrote: >> >> > Bart Lidofsky wrote: >> > It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, >> > both physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring >> > men to be the leaders. "Exploitation" has negative connotations of >> > injustice, which is distinct from domination. >> >> First of all most women *do not want* to be dominated by a man, that is >> a myth made up by men. For a while this myth was force fed to woman >> from child hood to adulthood. Then women grew up and >> realized this wasn't true. Women are capable of making logial decisions. >> Women are strong and capable of taking care of ourselves physically, >> financially. > > Please learn to quote properly. The statement you attributed to me is >actually a statement with which I was DISAGREEING. And rather strongly >at that. By putting my name on the quote, you are not only ascribing >words to me that I did not originate, you are ascribing an opinion to me >that I find to be extremely distasteful, and potentially damaging to my >reputation. (note: THIS IS NOT A THREAT OF LEGAL RETALIATION OF ANY >KIND, JUST A STATEMENT OF HOW CARE IS NEEDED WHEN PUTTING SOMEBODY'S >NAME ON A STATEMENT.) > > Bart Lidofsky I'm not sure if this was purposeful or not, but April Joy did not post the message. It was actually Alan, who posted a reference written by April Joy. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 09:43:48 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Announcing the Release of a New Ebook Message-ID: <199612091452.JAA19589@ginger.vnet.net> New Theosophical Ebook This is to announce an ebook version of FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ESOTERIC PHILOSOPHY in Adobe Acrobat 3.0 format. It can be downloaded using a web browser from: ftp://ftp.theosophy.com/pub/theosophy/fund.pdf The ebook is based upon the first edition, but also includes spelling updates, standardization of terminology, and reworking of the diagrams into postscript drawings. A copyright has been added to protect it against commercial exploitation, and it refers the reader to buy a paper copy from either Theosophical University Press or Point Loma Publications, the two publishers offering the book in print. The ebook is over 3 MB in size, but it is a large book, with over 600 pages of text. The electronic edition leaves off a table of contents, and page headers. Footnotes are merged into the text. Text is related to the pagination of the first edition through the insertion of page-end markers. A "[37]" is inserted, for instance, into the etext at the point where page 37 of the print edition ends. This allows for citations to be made to the print edition, regardless of how the ebook pagination changes from one release to the next, or from one format (like PDF) to the next (like HTML). Any errors noticed in the book should be referred to editor@theosophy.com so that corrections can be made in subsequent releases of the text. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 08:01:31 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Intuition vs. Emotion Message-ID: <32AC37D9.6BCA@earthlink.net> Tom Robertson: >Maybe I should not have assumed as much standardization of ideas among >Theosophists who are not members of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), as I >have, since my experience with non-TS members is very limited. Still, there >has to be something that all Theosophists have in common, or the term is >meaningless. >Is it some kind of grudge you have against the Theosophical Society that >makes you so snotty, rude, insulting, and intolerant towards one of its >members, or is this your way of trying to "establish a nucleus of the >universal brotherhood of humanity?" I have done nothing to deserve it. >Maybe being involved in the Seattle Lodge of the TS has spoiled me, since, >in the 3 years that I have been active in it, no one has ever been so >disrepectful towards me. They have encouraged me to say what I have to say, >regardless of whether or not they agree with me, and have not insulted me >for doing so. >Maybe the name of this list should be renamed >"Crusading for Feminism." It is my understanding of Theosophy that it >considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal. You have the arrogance to basically make statements that say, emotion is inferior, women are more emotional than men, therefore men are superior than women, therefore men should dominate. Then you have the arrogance to say that people are being hateful to you, that you have done nothing to deserve this, that you are a longstanding Theosophist, then you stated about levels of planes of spirit-matter, that you got your information from the "standardization of ideas among Theosophists", and that we are not striving for balance. Your point of views were getting very tiresome to me, and I was just about to ignore you. However, upon reflection, the strength of us pacifists is speech. Tom, we are not going to club you for your point of view, but we sure are going to speak our minds, just as you spoke your mind in ways that demean women, and in ways that support war. Too many people are silent about what they feel is right, because they are afraid to make waves, because they are afraid to draw attention to themselves, because they are afraid that they would change society too much, change what they know, no matter how erroneous. Sure, Tom, you are one person with his opinion, and we should respect your opinion. However, if there were millions of you out there with the same opinion (and looking at the situation of the world, there is), then that is very dangerous to equality, and very dangerous to peace. It is time to stand up and say, "NO!" when one encounters a person with such dangerous point of views, even if we have to talk, talk, talk our heads off, even if we have to carry picket signs every day. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:27:52 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > >Alan > > Translation: Since I regard Tom to have a different estimate of the general > level of intelligence of a certain group of people than I have and since > some people who share what I perceive to be Tom's estimate have been > vicious, underhanded, and hateful, I therefore conclude that Tom must also > be vicious, underhanded, and hateful, and, since the organization to which > he belongs has referred to the organization to which I belong as a "Rival > organisation," I, in the spirit of brotherhood and since I have no > intelligent response to what Tom has said, regard him as no friend of mine, > disregarding the fact that, in personally attacking him, I am guilty of the > same prejudice and hate of which I accuse him, never for a moment > considering the possibility that I might have misunderstood him and never > bothering to find out before I distort the meaning of what he has written to > be "demeaning and insulting." My crime? How could avoiding the making of > distinctions, as the 2nd object says, by never making comparisons between > any two individuals and between any two groups of individuals, be a crime? > After all, aren't all differences between people mere illusions? It is > those who do not realize that brotherhood depends on seeing the Theosophical > truth that all people, and all groups of people, are identical that we must > most vigorously reject. > Gee for someone apparently upset about people misunderstanding you, you certainly seem willing to utterly alter the meaning of the words of others. I didn't think Alan's letter needed any translation at all. Perhaps we should all start "translating" your posts? Several people responded to your posts "intelligently", and you ignored them ... preferring to respond instead as though you are some sort of victim. You want an intelligent discussion? Then start making intelligent points *backed by some sort of argument or evidence* - as that is what generally constitutes "intelligent" discussion. For instance, you made the almost preposterous statement that most women want to be dominated by men. You made this statement on a list containing a number of *very* strong, intelligent women - I personally have pretty much tuned out most of what you've written since then, as if this is the level of your thought it isn't barely even worth reading ... but I noticed a couple of people *did* decide to do engage the topic - asking for some sort of evidence and telling you that you could in no way know what "most" women "want" - in fact much of your writing seems simply full of huge generalizations with almost no foundation or evidence - however, you responded by giving a list of people some sort of Stats 101 lecture (gee, you mean the behaviour of many can *really* be mostly estimated from the behaviour of a smaller set? What a revelation!). The person then (I believe) responded by saying ok, so where is the *evidence* ... where *is* that poll of 1000 american women in which "most" of them said they wanted to be "dominated" by women? I notice this question - not only an "intelligent" question, but *the* question that goes straight to the heart of your assertion, and that *had to* be answered if you *genuinely* wanted an "intelligent" discussion, was never answered, or even addressed. In fact I've noticed you've ignored most of the intelligent responses to your assertions, and instead simply kept making generalizations and assertions, never defining terms, never offering anything resembling credible evidence. Instead you respond to the increasing number of people who simply blast you - as though you are some sort of poor victim who only wanted to have a "rational" discussion and is now being beat up by "feminists" ... carrying some sort of banner that alleges that it is simply because of your "unpopular" ideas that everyone is ganging up on you - you are the bold one standing up for truth in a sea of feminist emotionalism. In fact, a lot of the ideas you are asserting are getting a much *milder* response than they would in many other areas of American culture - they are atavistic and out of the mainstream ... I'd love to see you walk into any American university, into the offices of any large corporation, in fact even into most churches (save those of the radical fundamentalist nature) and say "Most women want to be dominated by men". The response you've gotten on this list is *kind and compassionate* compared to what you'd experience elsewhere. You want to just state "unpopular" ideas that have huge emotional charges behind them, make the statements in the form of sweeping, generalized assertions, with no definition of terms, no evidence to back the claims, and no response to requests for such evidence, and then *complain* when people attack you, paint *yourself* as a victim, and say people aren't engaging in constructive conversation with you? Fact is, this list is pretty much *full* of intellectuals, a lot of Theosophy's best authors are here, the *average* educational level is probably that of the Master's level, and the tendency is usually to over-intellectualize. These are not people who just blast away - but *you* are not engaging in intellectual debates ... not offering the substance needed to engage at the level you complain that no one will engage you at ... but still keep making the assertions ... and so people are increasingly responding *at the only level at which you have permitted responses to be possible*. What this list *does* do over time is help people refine their thoughts, achieve a far greater precision in expression ... maybe, just maybe, you should perhaps take a day and sit back, and consider perhaps whether some of your ideas might actually be *wrong*? That there are some assertions you've made that are not backed up with argument and evidence because they *cannot* be so supported? That some of them may actually not even *be* ideas so much as simply tired cliches that have no basis in reality any longer ... a level of thought that *cannot* be engaged intellectually. Has it occured to you to try to get beyond your own defensiveness and take the increasing negative responses from a good number of people as *information*, as a sign that it may not just be a bunch of overly emotional feminists blasting you because of your unpopular "truths", but rather as a sign that *your own* conceptions of women are *not correct*, need substantial reformation and deepening, perhaps need to be re-thought from the ground up? On this list we've seen many come and go - and almost everyone that has stayed in the long run has undergone a blasting, the alchemical hot-fire, and has become rather more open and fluid ... but we have had many come on the list, assert a bunch of rigid ideas, be completely closed to altering their own perspective, start complaining loudly about how mean and nasty everyone is, and leave after a month or two in a snit, or a huff, or with the self-justification that they were badly misunderstood victims who were just innocently trying to raise points. It is almost a syndrome, the stages are so predictable ... For my own part, I hope you make it past the list "initiation" ... but that is your choice ... as it stands now, continuing the current discourse is useless. If you *really* want intelligent, "rational" discussion with people, start making arguments stronger than those that could not even survive a freshman philosophy seminar intact ... you want to make assertions about "women", then *back them up with something* - but this means you will of necessity need to actually seek evidence I suspect you've never sought ... will necessitate throwing out a lot of your assumptions and perhaps facing some unpleasent truths - but what may happen in the long run is a much fuller understanding of men and women, and probably vastly improved relationships with the women in your life. But get this ... you are *not* being victimized on this list - rather, offered an opportunity to refine your own thought ... and the ones blasting you the hardest are, whether you grasp it or not, your best *spiritual* allies. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 96 9:37:06 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Answer to Doss Message-ID: <199612091437.JAA16812@leo.vsla.edu> M. K. Ramadoss asked how publication of The Masters Revealed changed the percentage of my friends and enemies who were Theosophists. Referring just to IRL relationships, not to those existing only on cyberspace: no loss of Theosophical friends resulted from the book, but I had few to start with. When I was actively involved in a TS branch, the number of Theosophists friends may have risen to five out of the 25, but moving changed that, not my literary endeavors. I did gain a few enemies as a result of the book, but the disproportionate ratio of Theosophists among meanest-people-I- can-recall was evident well before the book came out. My guess is it just has to do with the proportion of "cranks" who are involved in a movement of a certain age. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 9 09:38:50 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Matriarchal Theosophy Message-ID: <199612091438.JAA17531@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >>In message <32A877A7.1BD7@gnp.com>, April Joy >>writes >>>Men will accuse a woman of cheating but if you really look into it >>>usually the man was cheating and then accused the woman of it out to >>>make the woman the guilty party. > >[etc... snipped] > > >"Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: > >>A brilliant post! I trust everyone will forgive me for repeating some >>of it! I hope April will join us in Theosophy International, where >>truth is free and equal for all, and no one can dominate anyone. > > >I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he believes >that men and women are basically equal and then mentions one way in which he >believes men are superior, and that a woman can write an article in response >saying that men and women are basically equal, and then mentions 23 ways >that she considers women to be superior, and the same man, responding to >both, can call the male author a "sexist bastard" and call the post of the >female author "brilliant." Maybe the name of this list should be renamed >"Crusading for Feminism." It is my understanding of Theosophy that it >considers balance, not matriarchy, to be the ideal. Some of us are a little confused. Some are confused. And some are very confused. I didn't find this article very brilliant or theosophical, and equally your posts have given me the same impression. (Just IMHO) There are a lot of good points made in your posts, so I don't ignore them or prey on the sexist nature of them. But that doesn't mean I like them:). Please don't leave the server. I think that if you stay on long enough those of us who are confused about what we believe may actually learn a lot, and perhaps you will too. In fact I'm sure of it. We all have a lot to learn. None of us are perfect. I wish others on this list would realize this, and rather than attack you, and call you crazy and sexist, try to understand you, while you try to understand them. (I'll point out here that I don't believe I have yet seen you DIRECTLY demean anyone on this server, but many have done this to you) IMHO, our goal should be to understand each other, not judge each other. And just as soon as I stop judging others, I'll let everyone know. (IOW, I'm not anywhere near perfect, as some think I believe) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:48:39 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: The friendship thing Message-ID: <19961209184837.AAA16539@LOCALNAME> At 04:31 AM 12/9/96 +0000, Kym wrote: >Richard, if a man came up to you, announced your [wife, daughter, >girlfriend, Mother] was 'inferior' to them, would you want them as your friend? Kym, if you said that you thought men and women were equal overall, but that men were superior in X ways and that women were superior in Y ways, and someone else insisted, as well as publicly expressed the opinion, that you thought that men were inferior, would you want that individual as a friend? >Tom has already >stated that he's glad the TS doesn't listen to people who do not think as he >does - at least Tom has found happiness there. If anyone deliberately and maliciously distorts the meaning of what others say, as you have of what I have said, I hope the TS does not listen to them. >It is not those who fight for the equality of humanity who are the >"unfriendly" ones, Richard, it is those who fight for INEQUALITY who are. Since I have said that I thought men and women are basically equal, and you have so strenuously rejected what I have said, I conclude that you are fighting for inequality. >Tom has made it clear whom he desires to befriend. . .but let it never be >said that, in the beginning, I (and others) weren't willing to accept him as >such. You were not willing to accept me as such. You prefer falsely characterizing what I have said. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:19:53 -0800 From: Art House Subject: To K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <32B05AD7.5D8E@earthlink.net> TTT in last post: >K. Paul J., we at Art House just bought your book "The Masters >Revealed." Let's see whether we'll hate you, too. We're sorry that we >are going to share your book, that means less profit for you. :-) TTT contrite: Looking at the joke again, it does look hostile. I have to realize that I am only typing words, without the accompaniment of a smile, a pleasant face, and gestures. I am sorry, sorry, sorry, especially in light of your hurt feeling regarding t/Theosophists. S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:30:29 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Value Judgments Message-ID: <19961212193026.AAA7794@LOCALNAME> At 02:57 PM 12/12/96 +0000, Mark at Art House wrote: >"Equal but different" will get no argument from me. > >It just seemed like you were saying that men were predominantly logic >oriented (manas) and women predominantly emotional (kama) in some kind >of constant sense, and that according to the chart of planes and your >quote that "higher up was more valuable, significant and real", this >acted as a sort of proof for your assertion of male "superiority". If >that's a mischaracterization, then I apologize. In that men are more logical than women, they _are_ superior. The mischaracterization comes from assuming that I do not believe that, in other ways, women are superior to men, in blatant disregard for the fact that I have said at least 10 times (a necessity that I find disappointing in a group that claims to be open to dissent) that I consider men and women to be equal overall, but different. That they are different means that, in every way that they are different, one will be superior to the other. I do not care how sexist that makes me seem, since, until someone points out a specific way that this is wrong, instead of the consistent name-calling that, so far, has been the best response to it, I will assume there is no argument with any substance against it. If anyone disagrees with me and believes that women are more logical than men, or that they are exactly as logical as each other, then why not simply say so? Why discourage discussion? I find it especially ironic that women respond in an emotional, personal, illogical way, protesting that women are really as logical as men. >Maybe all you were trying to get at was that there are characteristic >differences that are noticable. I think the trigger word was >"superiority" That this is a trigger word is not my responsibility, since the alternative is to not make value judgments, which would make decisions impossible. To see value judgments as evil is necessarily hypocritical, since all of life is about seeking the greatest value, choosing what is perceived to be the best alternative. If believing that there are any differences in abilities between men and women is sexist, so that the only way to not be regarded as sexist is either to believe men and women are identical, or, if one believes they are different, to not dare say so, then sexism is a virtue. The idea that the best approach to life is to never make value judgments is anathema to me. Some people, in some ways, ARE inferior to others. It is not just imagination. People who claim that "there is no religion higher than truth" have no business discouraging such a statement without pointing out what is wrong with it. I see evaluation and acceptance as an example of Yin and Yang. Men tend to compete more and make comparisons more than women do, whereas women are more prone to accept life as it is and be more cooperative. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:30:33 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <19961212193026.AAB7794@LOCALNAME> At 06:48 AM 12/12/96 +0000, TTT wrote: >Tom Robertson: >>If anyone considers this to be an inaccurate "characterization" of her post >>and mine, I would be interested in knowing the basis for their opinion, >>since my "characterization" seems pretty straightforward to me. The >>reference to "winning" implies a personal approach that I do not share. I >>am interested in honest, substantive discussion, not "winning." > >TTT: >In your post in Theos-L 750, you stated that "competition is necessary >for growth." In a competition, somebody has to win. Are you saying >that you realize that winning is necessary for growth, but that you do >not share in that approach? Competition does not have to be personal. This is another area in which men are superior to women. Men can compete with each other in an impersonal way, separating a business relationship from a personal relationship, much more so than can women, who are much more prone to resort to personal attacks. >Tom: >>Were my facts inaccurate? >>My post offered facts, which no one has disputed. > >What facts? Facts according to the world of Tom? You just did the very thing that I said has been the general response to what I have said. "Facts according to the world of Tom?" translates to: "I do not know how I disagree with you, and I cannot dispute what you say, but I just find it upsetting." Why not specifically, impersonally point out HOW you disagree with me if you do not like what I say? _All_ facts that I express are "facts according to the world of Tom." All expressions of fact by you are "facts according to the world of TTT." How is this peculiar to me? >You started out with vast, >generalized statements regarding men's superiority. I defy you to, as you are obligated to now that you have made the charge, come up with a statement of mine which has the meaning that I believe that, overall, men are superior to women. That is a conclusion you jumped to, probably aided by the feminist agenda on this list which seeks to portray anyone who says that men are superior to women in any way as sexist, without sufficiently carefully reading what I wrote. >Now you are >protesting that you were only pointing out that men and women are >different, and that some of us are attacking you. Would you call being called a "sexist bastard" and being told that I am not to be regarded as a friend something besides an attack? I came on to this list hoping to have discussions which were comparable to what I am used to by Theosophists, with never a name called and never an opinion discouraged because it is different, and complete freedom to disagree. But if my being regarded as a "friend" depends on how well I conform to the program, I am not interested in such phony "friendship." To the extent that whenever anyone says anything, without first confirming that it will be popular, there is a risk of a personal attack, discussion will be inhibited. I cannot think of anything more untheosophical. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:30:37 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Is There a Universe? Message-ID: <19961212193026.AAC7794@LOCALNAME> At 03:52 PM 12/12/96 +0000, Eldon Tucker (eldon@theosophy.com) wrote: >The term "universe" is sometimes used to refer to the totality of >all that is. But it is also thought of as a particular system of >existence. It is misleading if it refers to anything definite, since it implies that there is only one of them. >When we talk about the universe starting with "the big bang", >we're dealing with *a* universe, and not the totality of >everything, everywhere. This makes the most sense to me, even though the term "numberless universes" is literally an oxymoron. >Purucker has a good term for the totality of all that is. He calls >it "the Boundless All". The term really includes everything, both >in and out of existence, both manifest and unmanifest, latent and >active, seen and unseen. Another term for it might be the >"multiverse", which implies that there are many, actually >numberless universes, and we're talking about all of them. The problem I have with using any word or words to describe "the totality of all that is" is that it implies that there is something definite to which is being referred, which is not true if it is infinite. Negation, when possible, is more accurate. Rather than say, for example, that everything constantly changes, I would rather say that there is nothing which does not constantly change. The former implies a limit which the latter does not. >The term "eternal", for instance, meaning existing throughout all >time, or until the end of time, when applied to a particular >world-system means until that system comes to its natural end. >When we speak of eternal liberation through entering Nirvana, for >instance, it applies to our attaining freedom from rebirth for the >duration of the earth's existence, the current planetary >manvantara. To the extent that the word "eternal" is understood to mean something absolute, when referring to something definite, it, also, is misleading. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:04:45 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the fridnship thing Message-ID: <199612122014.PAA16712@ultra1> Kym writes >I am aware I am running a huge risk of being labeled emotional, therefore >weak, by revealing my "fear" of men who think as you do. So be it. . .I >just don't know what else to tell you. . .except the truth. I'll accept the >consequences. > Dear Kym, Please let me tell you that the "acientific" view of being objective and leaving the emotions out of your dealings is by now considered antiquated, for men as well as for women. It has by now been well established that thought and emotions work together ... mixed together ... They are just about impossible to separate. The Nazis tried to train themselves & their young people to act completely unemotionally. They even invented a word for it ... to be "stur" (stoor) - unfeeling, unemotional. They thought they had it, but it turned out afterwards that they didnd't. Not even a scientist can be completely "stur". It has by now been discovered that the experimenter's personal attitude & feelings have an effect on the experiment. I'd like to suggest to you that completely "stur" persons can most often be found in booby hatches, because it really can't be done, unless one is completely unhinged. Some pathological killers are stur. So now please stop worrying about showing your emotions. You wouldn't be normal if you didn't. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:15:46 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: who's on top Message-ID: <199612122025.PAA17955@ultra1> > - both men and women are equal, >not identical. I still think a good word to describe a saatisfactory relationship between men and women is "complementary", like yang & yin. Liesel. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:19:21 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612122029.PAA18386@ultra1> > For instance, if I want a job as a secretary, I probably won't get it >because I am a man. If I want to be a bank teller. Well, I can pretty much >forget about that too. And you can't say it is because the "boss" is male >and, therefore, wants a female secretary/teller. I'm weeping real crocodile tears. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:29:01 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: Skillful Email Self-Expression Message-ID: <199612132129.QAA01830@jimi.vnet.net> As the more-experienced participants in theos-l and other email discussion groups discover, there's an art to self-expression in this new media. At first, one comes on strong, writing as one thinks, holding nothing back, boldly denouncing what one disagrees with and eagerly attacking people and positions that conflict with one's own world view. I could picture statements like: > What! You disagree with Blavatsky! You heathen non-theosophist! > Men and women aren't the same! Crawl into a hole and die, you > dirt-bag scum excuse for a human being. > You think Guru Bubblegum is not the direct agent of the Masters > and supercedes what HPB and other earlier writers said? You're > just another of the blind, non-initiated masses, crawling in the > muck of western materialism! > The leaders of all the theosophical groups are corrupt, > power-hungry, ignorant bastards that aren't insightful enough to > accept and print my brilliant books! > You disagree with me because you're a hateful bigot that cannot > accept the truth when it stares you in the face! You're a mere > fat-ist (hater of fat people)! There are certain things we can learn from our early mistakes in communication. 1. Making a bold statement, call for action, or denunciation of something we don't like does not rally support behind us, nor does it lead people to change their ways and do things our way. It simply hardens positions and makes enemies for us. For example, if we support vegetarianism and find it both harmful and unhealthy to eat meat, we don't have to denounce people that still choose to eat meat, telling the world that they are wrong, selfish, greedy, evil, etc. 2. We cannot assume to speak for other people as to their motives nor as to what they are trying to say. If we hear something we think sounds odd or wrong, we should ask the person to clarify their meaning and intent. As a general rule, we should accept their clarification, and not call them liars and insist our interpretation of their statements is more true than their clarification. For example, if someone uses the word "brotherhood" and we have come to consider that word as meaning "a fraternity of men" and become quickly angered, we need to ask if that is what they meant by the word, and why they were using it. One person may have gleefully picked the word to enrage us, like waving a red flag in front of a bull; another person may simply use the term in its older meaning and with no ill intent. We cannot presume sexism and should not indulge in projection. 3. We learn that we cannot say everything skillfully, in a single posting, with no room for improvement. We find that words we thought were completely lucid leave others saying "huh?" We make multiple attempts at expressing our ideas, taking the feedback from others, and our writing techniques improve. We don't assume others are stupid when they fail to understand and agree with what we first write. From this we learn to apply the same tolerance to others that we needed during our learning process. We don't insist that the views of others are fixed in concrete with their first posting on a subject, but realize that they may need several postings to explain what they mean. An example of this problem would be where someone says "the theosophical idea of root races is racist". Then with further discussion, the person comes to see or express that "the theosophical idea of root races is not racist, but is subject to misinterpretation and misrepresentation in support of racist views." Another example would be if someone makes a blanket statement that "all psychic abilities are harmful," but later comes to refine it to include "except if they are naturally arising, not forced, and outside of any spiritual practice that calls for their non-cultivation." 4. We learn to appreciate that we have an audience of people. We're not driving a car, alone on the freeway, talking to ourselves about how horrid the other drivers are. We're not writing in a journal. We're communicating with people. We need to temper what we say and how we say it with them in mind. We need to picture that there are people before us while we're writing, people of other views, and respect their self-dignity and feelings. An example of not doing this would be when we take a specific political stand, knowing full well that all areas of the political spectrum are represented in our readership, and curse, denounce, and vilify people of some persuasion that disagrees with our own. Say we were to pick on a fundamentalist Christian approach, the politically correct movement, or the anti-government survivalist crowd. We'd step on some toes, making people mad, even if there were some element of truth in what we'd say. They'd be quick to respond to us that their central ideas are sacroscant, holy truths, and we are stupid, if not wilfully evil for profaning them. And we'd have a fight on our hands. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:50:24 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: In message <199612091457.JAA19285@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>>Don't we want Tom as a friend? >> >>As far as I personally am concerned, not while he demeans and insults >>the intelligence of women on and off the lists, the defence of which >>type of thinking produced one of the most underhand and vicious behind- >>the-scenes hate campaigns I have ever experienced at the hands of >>"theosophists". My crime? supporting gender-incusive language and >>genuine equality between the sexes by my support for Theosophy >>International, which was described as a "Rival organisation." >> >>Sorry. >> >>Alan > >I think that it all depends on what the primary goal is. Does understanding >come before judging or does judging come before understanding. Or should >judging even come into play? > >Just a thought.:) >--- >The Triaist > Tom, you, everyone on this and all of the lists are members of the universal human family mentioned in the TI statement of intent. That is a common bond shared by all human beings. However, not all human beings are my friends, and I am not a friend to all human beings. Some I know for certain are my enemies, although still members of the same human family. Judging comes into everything in this life somewhere or another, even if it's only which brand of a product to buy. I do not see any reason to relate understanding and judging together as if they were inevitably connected - seems an odd idea to me. 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, 12 Dec 1996 23:48:25 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Skillful Email Self-Expression Message-ID: <19961212234823.AAA15081@LOCALNAME> At 10:19 PM 12/12/96 +0000, uscap9m9@ibmmail.com wrote: >There are certain things we can learn from our early mistakes in >communication. > >1. Making a bold statement, call for action, or denunciation of > something we don't like does not rally support behind us, nor > does it lead people to change their ways and do things our > way. It simply hardens positions and makes enemies for us. This depends on whether or not the statement made was personal or impersonal. That personal insults are destructive of discussion does not mean that impersonal value judgments are also inappropriate. > For example, if we support vegetarianism and find it both > harmful and unhealthy to eat meat, we don't have to denounce > people that still choose to eat meat, telling the world that > they are wrong, selfish, greedy, evil, etc. But those who support vegetarianism _can_ legitimately say that they think it is better than eating meat, without calling meat-eaters names. >2. We cannot assume to speak for other people as to their motives > nor as to what they are trying to say. If we hear something > we think sounds odd or wrong, we should ask the person to > clarify their meaning and intent. As a general rule, we should > accept their clarification, and not call them liars and insist > our interpretation of their statements is more true than their > clarification. The phrase "as a general rule" has important implications of exceptions. Once someone has demonstrated the intent to personally attack, there is no further obligation to assume they are making a sincere attempt at honest discussion. >4. We learn to appreciate that we have an audience of people. > We're not driving a car, alone on the freeway, talking to > ourselves about how horrid the other drivers are. We're not > writing in a journal. We're communicating with people. The lack of physical presence, so that no speaker's tone of voice is heard, accounts for much of the difficulty in communication. > Say we were to pick on a fundamentalist Christian approach, > the politically correct movement, or the anti-government > survivalist crowd. We'd step on some toes, making people mad, > even if there were some element of truth in what we'd say. > They'd be quick to respond to us that their central ideas are > sacroscant, holy truths, and we are stupid, if not wilfully > evil for profaning them. And we'd have a fight on our hands. Theosophists worthy of the name can discuss such subjects without it degenerating into a fight. In my association with Theosophists, I have fairly unpopular political views, but, with one minor exception, I have never experienced any ill will in our discussions of it. It is understood by them that the spirit with which discussions are conducted is more important than what is said. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:44:44 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: <4mr4K7AMO2ryEwMc@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199612091503.KAA20016@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >I'm not sure if this was purposeful or not, but April Joy did not post the >message. It was actually Alan, who posted a reference written by April Joy. Not one word of your quoted post was written or posted by me. Definitely a big mix-up 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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:51:57 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Intuition vs. Emotion Message-ID: <82n5OAB9U2ryEwN+@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <32AC37D9.6BCA@earthlink.net>, Art House writes >It is time to stand >up and say, "NO!" when one encounters a person with such dangerous point >of views, even if we have to talk, talk, talk our heads off, even if we >have to carry picket signs every day. Well done - and thanks! 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, 13 Dec 1996 00:51:53 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Fruitism Message-ID: <19961213005145.AAA8024@LOCALNAME> At 11:46 PM 12/12/96 +0000, "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >In message <199612091457.JAA19285@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >>Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>>Richard Ihle wrote: >>>>Don't we want Tom as a friend? >>>As far as I personally am concerned, not while he demeans and insults >>>the intelligence of women on and off the lists, the defence of which >>>type of thinking produced one of the most underhand and vicious behind- >>>the-scenes hate campaigns I have ever experienced at the hands of >>>"theosophists". My crime? supporting gender-incusive language and >>>genuine equality between the sexes by my support for Theosophy >>>International, which was described as a "Rival organisation." >>> >>>Sorry. >>> >>>Alan >>I think that it all depends on what the primary goal is. Does understanding >>come before judging or does judging come before understanding. Or should >>judging even come into play? >> >>Just a thought.:) >>--- >>The Triaist >> >Tom, you, everyone on this and all of the lists are members of the >universal human family mentioned in the TI statement of intent. That is >a common bond shared by all human beings. However, not all human beings >are my friends, and I am not a friend to all human beings. Some I know >for certain are my enemies, although still members of the same human >family. Judging comes into everything in this life somewhere or >another, even if it's only which brand of a product to buy. > >I do not see any reason to relate understanding and judging together as >if they were inevitably connected - seems an odd idea to me. I agree. In fact, not seeing that they do not rule each other out seems to be a major philosophical problem. I see judgment and understanding as an example of Yin and Yang. The attempt to judge without understanding is intolerant. The attempt to understand without judging would leave no basis on which to choose. As spirit and matter cannot exist without each other, though, the attempt to either judge or understand without doing both, at least to some extent, is probably doomed to failure. But this raises some questions. I had originally assumed that Alan's ruling out of the possibility of friendship with me was due to the fact that I compared men to women, and that he considered all such comparisons to be sexist. But now that he has said that making value judgments is inevitable, I am confused, since it implies that it is only that he disagreed with my value judgment, not that I made it, that would cause him to rule out the possibility of friendship with me. If I valued carrots at 40 cents per pound, and he valued them at 50 cents per pound, would that also be a basis for ruling out friendship? To be consistent with what he said about the ways in which I regard women as inferior, would he not have to say that I had "demeaned and insulted" carrots everywhere by not valuing them according to their true value? If I valued apples at 60 cents per pound, would I be considered to be fruitist? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:25:21 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Answer to Doss Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >Amazing. Anyone who truly believes in the First Object in its widest >form, cannot have enemies -- it is possible that due to strong >disagreement on any issue or item, one may not like to have contact with >a certain person. Whoa! I see a sweeping generalisation here! I *know* I have some enemies because they *behave* like enemies - they attack me maliciously and with harmful intent. However widely I "believe" in the first object (no capitalisation - it's an ideal, not a holy icon) they behave the same way consistently. With such people I definitely do *not* want to have contact, even though they claim to support the first object and the TS. I *know* such people are enemies from their behavior! With great respect Doss, try telling this to someone who is aiming at your jugular vein - you likely won't get past the first few words! The world is not a nice place full of well-meaning and idealistic theosophists, and some of those who claim the title have dishonored it, as a study of Theosophical Society history has shown. In Mother India, home of the "Masters" there has been a sad history of murder, maiming and destruction, not from the wicked Christians, but between Muslims and Hindus, from whom so much theosophical teaching has been derived, and who would all claim to support some form of the first object. This is planet earth. Location: down. 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, 13 Dec 1996 01:30:58 GMT From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: <199612130130.BAA18459@rvik.ismennt.is> At 08:22 09.12.1996 -0500, Doss wrote: >Let me add my 2 cents worth. > >As one who feels deeply about all living beings, especially the Humanity, >I consider *every* living being my friend. > >If anyone comes and meets me, I will meet him as my friend. Anyone is >welcome to come to my home as my home is open to anyone. > >This approach has worked very well for me and I developed it solely due >to my exposure to T/theosophy. > > Peace to all living beings. > > M K Ramadoss >--------------------- Dear Doss. As usual your Wisdom is on wholesale! It's worth a lot more than two cents! I too have been browsing the list, and I must say that I am amazed at how far away it's discussion has been able to come from my personal notion of what brother/sister/mater/pater/family-hood - is, which core is so beautifully expressed in your "confession" abowe. Mark also pointed out: >>>>Intuition, as a characteristic of Buddhi is also what we are taught. But we are additionally asked to know Buddhi as loving kindness and wise compassion. This knowledge is born out of the intuition of the intrinsic oneness of identity as Life and the experience of the unity of our individual identities as One in the universal. There is individuality here, but no gender distinction. In the higher reaches, there is not even individuality. I AM THAT I AM. Only when we turn earthward and personalize this intuitive understanding, do we then think thoughts of and feel feelings of "Brotherhood", "Humanity" "Love for one another", "Kindness" and "The Spirit of all Humankind".<<<< -- Couldn't we all try to be a little more sensitive and caring in our exclamations of our beliefs, if we have to cling to our beliefs at all. Can't we clearly see that the opinions of others, as well as ourselves, are mere figments in our minds, and at best have some vague indication to the reality "out there". If someone tells me that I'm "a male chauvenist pig" (which might well be a fact), that statement describes only what goes on in that persons head, doesn't it?! - BUT! - If that statement stirs up some unpeasant feelings in MY mind, I should stop short and consider what it is in ME that reacts! - If I on the other hand truly KNOW that there is nothing to it - then I won't react at all, and moreover I would not bother to engage in a useless discussion on the statement. Who we are, "speaks always much louder" to people than what we say, especially if what we say also speaks compassion and care for all. He who talks mean lies about a third pary, whom I learn to be innocent of said acusations, insults me, and is not worty of my trust any more. How about you? Please try to listen with care and compssion to what "our family" has to say on this list, and bear in mind that everyone is entitled to his own views. As long as you are free not to subscribe to them, they will not harm you. Only if you get attached, or react to what others say, in a positive OR a negative way, will it influence you. Speak your mind with compassion, it is your right, but please accept the same right for every other individual. This is not ment as a preaching to anyone on the list, just some thoughts from the heart of a mind that cares. Love and Light to you all. Einar from Iceland From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:15:40 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Is There a Universe? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961212181538.006a1650@mail.deltanet.com> Tom: >The problem I have with using any word or words to describe "the totality of >all that is" is that it implies that there is something definite to which is >being referred, which is not true if it is infinite. Negation, when >possible, is more accurate. Rather than say, for example, that everything >constantly changes, I would rather say that there is nothing which does not >constantly change. The former implies a limit which the latter does not. You're right about this distinction and it's one that I was trying to make. We're dealing with something entirely different, in speaking of the totality of all that is, than if we're speaking of a particular cosmos, world, or system of existence, a particular living replica of the universal pattern. >>The term "eternal", for instance, meaning existing throughout all >>time, or until the end of time, when applied to a particular >>world-system means until that system comes to its natural end. >>When we speak of eternal liberation through entering Nirvana, for >>instance, it applies to our attaining freedom from rebirth for the >>duration of the earth's existence, the current planetary >>manvantara. >To the extent that the word "eternal" is understood to mean something >absolute, when referring to something definite, it, also, is misleading. In some of his books, Purucker does a good job of making a distinction between relative and universal absolutes. There is relative, conditioned time, for instance, as related to a particular evolutionary scheme, and there's the pure, unconditioned, unrelated Time, quite independent of any relationship to existing things. If we consider two eternal's, two space's, two time's, two motion's, etc., then it becomes less misleading. The problem, though, is that in theosophical literature, terms are used at times with different meanings, and in different contexts, so we're left to sort them out in our studies. I find it helpful to have the idea that there are things that are *eternal*, that is, existing to the *end of time*. And that there is such a thing as the end of time. But these end's are in the context of a particular world-scheme, and have nothing to do with the Boundless All, which is beginningless and endless, since it is no particular thing. The meaning of "forever" can only be interpreted in terms of a particular "time", a time that is conditioned, in relationship to a particular world-system, and that time is only experienced by the inhabitants of that system. That particular experience of "time" *is not* for beings existing elsewhere, in other schemes; it simply does not exist. It's interesting to talk about these things, just difficult to put them down clearly in words... -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:39:55 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Theosophist Friends Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > reading yet. But I did appreciate your short piece on the > Bahai and their problems with the Internet. It was truly Ann: Can you excerpt or summarize the Bahai problems with the Internet? Due to the unusual nature of the Internet medium, many of the traditionalist type of organizations are going to have great trouble in coming to grips with it. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:47:43 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Equality? Message-ID: We have seen several msgs on the question of superiority /inferiority. Some thoughts came to my mind. No two human beings are like. Am I superior to my little girl of 10? She can sing and play violin very well and I cannot. Am I superior to my little boy of 3? His vision is 20/18. Mine without correction is 20/60? I am tall and my brother short. Am I superior to him? My wife is a fast thinker. I am a slow thinker. So is she superior to me? I am bald. My sixteen year old has lot of hair. Am I superior/or inferior to my sixteen year old? Probably we cannot answer any of the above questions. Only thing we can say is that in some respects one is better at certain things and the other is better in other things. So fundamentally it seems no one is superior or inferior to any one. If I keep this in my mind all the time, it will make it easier for me to deal with other people with whom I have to interact. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:15:00 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition vs. Emotion Message-ID: <961212221253_1987330119@emout14.mail.aol.com> Alan, Let us hope they are not foolish enough to try it with me. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:25:00 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: <961212221931_1455794137@emout08.mail.aol.com> Rich, sounds great to me. I'm in favor of promscuity wherever I can find it. And we all need all the friends we can get. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:08:56 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: And the beat goes on ... Message-ID: <32B0D6D8.4C20@sprynet.com> Art House wrote: > > A friend sent this to us. We thought you'd like it: > > THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN Just to give an interesting link between that story and the TS: A couple of years ago, the NYTS was having its annual meeing. Simultaneously, at the Barnes & Noble's a block away, Dave Barry was appearing to give a talk and booksigning. My wife and I were torn, to say the least. We decided, since the annual meeting was at 7:30, to show up at 7:00 and see as much of the talk as possible. Luckily for us, the talk was rather short; Dave Barry read an excerpt from his book. The exact excerpt you just quoted. Bart Lidofsky P.S. We made the annual meeting handily, much to the chagrin of those Dave Barry fans who did not attend the reading... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:21:22 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961213042122.006a0d78@whanganui.ac.nz> At 01:14 AM 12/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >M.K. Ramadoss writes--> >As one who feels deeply about all living beings, especially the Humanity, I >consider *every* living being my friend. > >If anyone comes and meets me, I will meet him as my friend. Anyone is welcome >to come to my home as my home is open to anyone. > >This approach has worked very well for me and I developed it solely due to my >exposure to T/theosophy. > >Richard Ihle writes--> >Thank you, M.K. Ramadoss, brother and friend. > >As I said previously, you are my kind of theosophist. > >Let us be the last two hold-outs on this issue, if we must. Let others >carefully scrutinize one another for proper ideas and attitudes in order to >find friends worthy of themselves. By contrast, let us be the very models of >promiscuity in this regard: let all who apply to us get the position without >test or tardiness. Indeed, let us affix the ~friend~ label on even those who >don't apply, and let them try to tear it off if they can. . . . > >Godspeed, > >Richard Ihle > I will have one of those labels and I won't take it off. Wouldn't it be a boring world if we all agreed with each other all the time. I thought it was diversity in unity. > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:55:57 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Tom Robertson, Theosophist Message-ID: <961212235557_1786922192@emout10.mail.aol.com> Bart Lidofsky writes--> Tom is my brother. I do not, however, believe that the Theosophical Society is the right place for him at this time. Richard Ihle writes--> Well, I'm not sure I agree with you here, Bart. I think it may have something to do with a possible difference in how we regard the ~Theosophical~ in the ~Theosophical Society~. Some people insist that it refers to SPECIFIC DOCTRINE (usually HPB's writings); other people think it properly refers to an EPISTEMOLOGY which gives potential validity to "knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception." Now, let's take Tom's most provocative statement: "Most women want to be dominated by men." You may have looked at it and concluded that it was not "Theosophical" because it didn't seem consistent with the "brotherhood (inclusive) doctrine" which has long been associated with the TS. I, on the other hand, immediately thought, "Well, this idea doesn't seem to be based on any scientific evidence that I am aware of; therefore, there is a good chance that it may be theosophical." You may have looked at Tom's words as the product of an inductive process drawing upon initial misperception or an insufficient data base; I, on the other hand, looked at it as the same sort of particular-to-universal reasoning--but only possibly informed by "Buddhic Apprehension" (perhaps a true Master need only look at a single person in order to derive all the correct generalizations applying to humanity). You might have been in concert with JRC's disapproval when he recently told Tom: "You want to just state 'unpopular' ideas that have huge emotional charges behind them, make the statements in the form of sweeping, generalized assertions, with no definition of terms, no evidence to back the claims, and no response to requests for such evidence [. . . ]. I, on the other hand, thought that JRC's charges might pretty well characterize a lot of the theosophical writings I am aware of and respect. In other words, even though my own theosophical development has not yet assisted me in ~seeing~ anything similar about women, I am willing to grant the possiblity that Tom may be a ~seer~ in this regard. However, there is a better chance that Tom is just plain mistaken, isn't there? So what? At least nine-tenths of all the "theosophically based" things I have said in my life have later either turned out dead wrong or required drastic revision, so I am hardly the one to take another theosophist to task for being mistaken. Nine-tenths of HPB I am still suspicious about, so why should I be harder on Tom than I am on her? Real theosophy--that is, in my opinion, theosophy corroberated by one's own transcendental resources--seems to me most often a matter of seeing which pin is left standing after the nine have been knocked down. The pin that has little or no conventional evidence to support it but remains standing nonetheless--ah, that is the Interesting One. . . . Unfortunately, Tom's "women-wanting-domination" pin didn't stay up for me very long; it may right itself someday, in some differently explained form perhaps, but for now it is horizontal. It just didn't start any theosophical chime in me sympathetically vibrating; however, neither did HPB's point of view on Australian aborigines being the remnants of the Fourth Root Race. (I will have to do the careful re-reading on the latter that you recommended, since I certainly have never been under the impression that the basic subject matter of Anthropogenesis was the progressive development of "CIVILIZATIONS" as you suggested in the aborigine instance.) The long and the short of it: I believe the Theosophical Society ~is~ the right place for Tom, HPB, you, and me at this time. --But not Chuck, of course. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:51:03 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Tom Robertson, Theosophist Message-ID: <961213005102_1488700903@emout12.mail.aol.com> Rich, I have this helmet on....:) I think the problem with Tom's ideas is the generalized way he puts them. My girlfriend, for example, certainly wants to be dominated and expects me to come up with ever more creative ways to do it. And if one looks at some of the older writings one can find oodles of material invoking the gods of war. Now there are some things Tom says that I think are just plain weird, but I can say that about everyone else in the TS I know. After all, I have this friend who says he's a prince among men who has a similar affect on lots of people. But I have been watching this exchange with some interest, trying to achieve as much detachment as possible, but I will confess that last night my blood pressure hit the roof and I am beginning to think that maybe your little joke may not be that far from the mark. If the TS is going to advocate censorship for any reason and decide which thoughts may or may not be expressed, for ANY reason, then maybe it is time that it is not for me because I have made a career out of thinking the unthinkable and saying the unsayable. I may think that Tom has a case of loose marbles at time, but I will not hesitate to say something very UNBROTHERLY of anyone who would try to silence him. Disagree by all means, but censor, never. Let them threaten me, if they dare! Chuck the Heretic "Let rivers run dry, Let orchards be barren, Let the air be as dust In the dark of the moon." Charles Cosimano "Litany Against the Universe" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:00:43 +1300 From: Dave Kirk Subject: Skillful Email Self-Expression Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961213060043.0068f97c@enternet.co.nz> eldon@theosophy.com (handle unknown) writes: >As the more-experienced participants in theos-l and other email >discussion groups discover, there's an art to self-expression in >this new media. I'd have to concur with the above. But, I'm presently in conflict between saying, "Hey, folks, I know you're having fun clashing intellectual antlers, but I for one think that perhaps you could be communicating in a more constructive way," and "Perhaps they really have a right to express themselves in this way." I haven't yet resolved this within myself, but there's no doubt that I will. On any list, there always seems to be a verbally competent few who dominate the direction and tone of the list, the others participating silently ("lurking" may be too passive a term, here.) This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it might mean that the responsibility of the list's welfare is shouldered in good part by the active core, whether they realise it or not. I'd say that the will or opinion of the silent majority could usefully assert itsef from time to time, in order to keep a balance. I find it fun not necessarily to identify completely with the current threads, but to watch where it's all heading. And we could ask the question, "Is there a sign that in all this there's a growing sense of understanding and acceptance of each other?" It may be too simple a query for some to accept, but c'est la vie. Finally, I suggest that what's transpiring here seems a microcosm of the T.S.'s long-term tendency for intellectual conflict and disparity with stated principles (!) ... can of worms (?) Just presenting ideas for your consideration; take or leave... If flames, mild, please. :-) Dave - - Dave Kirk New Zealand >"Once you turn it off, there are an infinite number of channels >to choose from." > -Another bus voice From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 06:38:13 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) Subject: [Brotherhood?] Message-ID: Hello Brothers and Sisters, I'm new to this list and I'm truly glad that we have it. However, I've read a number of the threads which sadden me. I've been a member of the TS here in the UK for about 2 years now and I've never come across this type of thing. There seems to be a lot of anger there in the US about something and I don't know what. Call me naive but I thought theosophy was all about brotherhood [read sisterhood too!], regardless of whether you are a member of the TS or not, and yet I hear all these arguments about "who's the true theosophist?" Surely a "true theosophist" wouldn't even contemplate such questions since that might be considered egotism,might it not?! Also, I realise from the start that my mental apparatus isn't in the same category as some of those on this list and so perhaps my philosophical arguments may be weak compared,but might I suggest that the questions about whether men or women are superior are in fact irrelevant. For those further on the Path than most I think personality can be quite a destructive thing and I can quite imagine that those who suggest one or the other as being superior are simply expressing the active and passive principles in the most natural way according to their natures, though it may not be what they actually know to be the Truth. Finally,I'd like to ask the group what they believe to be insanity. Someone suggested that to believe that there is nothing to perceive in Truth - please forgive me if those aren't the exact words,[it seems there is a tendency for some people get easily offended by not getting it exactly correct and go for the throat and consequently waste other people's time on meaningless arguments] - but this is what I believe. If I am "insane" then what of the Universal Mind - does it perceive anything at all, if not is It insane? If it is, what does this mean for the rest of us?!! Thank you for bearing with me on this long post. Namaste! With Love and Light we can heal the World Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:40:21 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Superior/Inferior Message-ID: <32B10857.771D@earthlink.net> Doss Wrote: >We have seen several msgs on the question of superiority /inferiority. >Some thoughts came to my mind. >No two human beings are like. >Am I superior to my little girl of 10? She can sing and play violin >very well and I cannot. and - >Only thing we can say is that in some respects one is better at certain >things and the other is better in other things. >So fundamentally it seems no one is superior or inferior to any one. That about sums it up for me as well. Tom wrote: >In that men are more logical than women, they _are_ superior. The >mischaracterization comes from assuming that I do not believe that, in other >ways, women are superior to men, in blatant disregard for the fact that I >have said at least 10 times (a necessity that I find disappointing in a >group that claims to be open to dissent) that I consider men and women to be >equal overall, but different. That they are different means that, in every >way that they are different, one will be superior to the other. I do not >care how sexist that makes me seem, since, until someone points out a >specific way that this is wrong, instead of the consistent name-calling >that, so far, has been the best response to it, I will assume there is no >argument with any substance against it. If anyone disagrees with me and >believes that women are more logical than men, or that they are exactly as >logical as each other, then why not simply say so? Why discourage >discussion? I find it especially ironic that women respond in an emotional, >personal, illogical way, protesting that women are really as logical as men. Tom, here's my take on a specific way. I have never experienced a constant perception that all men are more logical than women, or vice versa. Many men I've met have been extremely emotional, proud, easily hurt, whiny and immature, many others less than intelligent, let alone logical. Dumb as fence posts, really. Still some others have been brilliant and exacting, but never all the time and by no means has their logic always been faultless, successful, or untouched by emotion. I see no case for generalization in that. Nor do I see logic, whether used by men or by women as being always the superior perception or solution to a problem. The same can be said for the women I've known and met. There were tons with more logic than I or the other men I mentioned, doctors, lawyers, engineers, scholars, clergy, etc. Totally brilliant women who'd put any number of men to shame by a comparison of mental acuity or tests of logic. Nor would I say that some of the emotional abilities of either sex haven't been more insightful or helpful than all the logic in the world. The plain facts are that your generalizations are unfounded by my experience and I can't support you in them. Each individual has to be taken on their own terms. There are just too many exceptions to admit any kind of black and white assessment. I will agree that " any particular man or woman can be more logical or emotional than any other man or woman" case by case, but find any further gender based assumption unsupportable. for example: >Men tend to compete more and make comparisons more than women do, >whereas women are more prone to accept life as it is and be more cooperative. I'll suspect it's been a while since you've been shopping with a woman. If you have scientific data to back this up, please present it. If this is just your opinion, you are entitled to it, but I'll have to disagree. Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:25:44 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: <199612130725.AAA24112@snowden.micron.net> Einar wrote: >I too have been browsing the list, and I must say that I am amazed at how >far away it's discussion has been able to come from my personal notion of >what brother/sister/mater/pater/family-hood - is, which core is so >beautifully expressed in your "confession" abowe. Why? Families always quibble, logomachize, and just plain differ. Honesty and the expression of one's pain or joy will never sit well with everyone. >If someone tells me that I'm "a male chauvenist pig" (which might well be a >fact), A fact? That's too bad. . .(I can't believe it, I can't believe it. . .another one. . .and I'm all out of chocolate. . .) > that statement describes only what goes on in that persons head, >doesn't it?! No, it does not. People can be guilty of actions and words that hurt another's feelings and/or body without it being "in that persons head." Accepting a concept such as the ariya sacca (four noble truths) is one thing, but we cannot hold all to that standard if they are not yet ready - which is most people. >- BUT! - If that statement stirs up some unpeasant feelings in >MY mind, I should stop short and consider what it is in ME that reacts! - If >I on the other hand truly KNOW that there is nothing to it - then I won't >react at all and moreover I would not bother to engage in a useless >discussion on the statement. How does one really "KNOW that there is nothing to it"? Is it useless if someone's feelings are genuinely hurt? They may not consider it "useless" and not bothering to address it may cause more harm than the original offense did. >Please try to listen with care and compssion to what "our family" has to say >on this list, and bear in mind that everyone is entitled to his own views. And hers, please. >As long as you are free not to subscribe to them, they will not harm you. >Only if you get attached, or react to what others say, in a positive OR a >negative way, will it influence you. Again, I believe 'anatta' (no-self) is only for those who truly understand it. It's too easy to ignore suffering when one adopts that frame of mind without the necessary wisdom. This discussion list is not a dead, cold, impersonal thing; it is alive with people, and their emotions, thoughts, and ideas. The recent arguments/discussions (sexism, brotherhood, sexual purpose) are all theosophy; they are theosophy in action. Carrying out the garbage is theosophy (or maybe that's Zen). Maybe it does get too mean sometimes but will anything get accomplished if we all start singing Kumbuya? Maybe it will. I have found the harae ritual useful after a "blasting." Heads up, though! If I see posts I feel are sexist, or prejudiced, or anything else ripe with rot. . .my yap will flap. Free speech is one of the few things on this planet who prides itself on being no one's friend. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:01:37 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: The Feminist Agenda Message-ID: <199612130901.CAA24700@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: > That is a conclusion you jumped to, >probably aided by the feminist agenda on this list which seeks to portray >anyone who says that men are superior to women in any way as sexist, without >sufficiently carefully reading what I wrote. There is no "feminist agenda." You've been taken to task for some of your outrageous statements - we all have, Tom. Just because a vocal few on this list do not like what you have to say does not mean it's some grand conspiracy or agenda. I personally abhor most of what you say. . .and I, unlike some others, think you know exactly what you're saying and how you're saying it. You write skillfully and effectively. Your ability to ridicule the person you are responding/writing to is surpassed only by your ability to camouflage it in the most circular of arguments. Kudos to you, Tom - I've not seen anybody so defended as you on theos-l or asked to stay on the list in such sweet terminology. I've seen people chased off this list for "lesser crimes." You obviously have some redeeming quality I'm failing to recognize. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:47:18 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Sexism etc Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961214025934.1c67ca4c@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to Tom >>[JRC] >>Several people responded to your posts "intelligently", >> >[Tom] >You have a strange definition of the word "intelligent," if you consider >responding to an impersonal expression of an opinion with personal insults >and name-calling to be intelligent. > >>and you ignored them >> >I am not aware of having ignored anyone. Tom, I responded at length to some of your expressed ideas on 6 December 96, without anything I can conceive of as being personal insult or name-calling. Perhaps you did not receive that piece, or maybe it has receded in your mind in the dust of subsequent battle. I am not holding this up as a fault - just feel that it needs pointing out. >>[JRC] >>You want an intelligent discussion? Then start making intelligent >>points *backed by some sort of argument or evidence* - as that is what >>generally constitutes "intelligent" discussion. For instance, you made >the almost preposterous statement that most women want to be dominated by >>men. >> [Tom] >I said that, in most marriages, the man is more of a leader than the woman >is. No one responded to that by disagreeing with it. > [and later] > ... there was no sign of >anything like "I disagree; I believe that ..... I addressed this specific issue by providing an outline of an understanding which would take in differences of strength or development at different levels of being. Further, an understanding that would allow for time fluctuations of the relative strengths at each level, even complete reversals, and that broadened the field of application to more than just man-woman relationships. Implicit (at least in my intended meaning), was the idea of *equality of value* coexisting with differences both great and small. I also tried to dissect out the negative associations inherent in words "weakness" and "dominate" by providing a (to me) judgment-free but much more expressive metaphor of complementary elements of polarity where to receive was not weakness, but could have strengths as great as giving, all participating in the universal economy of energy at every level. I have used different and far fewer words, now, but that's the gist of it. >I was simply labelled a "sexist bastard." And now you >are saying that _I_ am responsible for the lack of intelligent discussion, >implying that name-calling is not nearly as destructive to it as is >believing that there are differences between men and women! Tom, of course you are not solely responsible, but you do inevitably bear a considerable degree of responsibility for the tone, let alone the volume, of responses you have elicited on these subjects. I don't believe you were being *deliberately* provocative at all, but the effects of some of the things you said a week and more ago, definitely got me stirred up into writing mode, and that doesn't happen very often. And they clearly stirred a lot of other people, too. It was particularly in how you started. Since then, you have provided more of the elements of opinion that balance the initial impressions - a phenomenon that happens frequently in any discussion. So we have strong reactions to the beginning, and then strong reactions to those, but eventually, with a bit of goodwill (and there is a lot of that around here, despite your misgivings), there is often a convergence of views - one of the most rewarding events in participating in a forum like this, IMO. I see signs of it happening already, despite the strong differences in approach of different people. I appreciate your tenacity and, dare I say it, willingness to use logic. I've had to re-read some of your sentences several times! :-) And, blow me down, but I reckon there's a feeling human being in there after all, though that's a sexist comment whose ramifications could branch out to embrace the whole universe! :-) Like everything, of course. Nothing escapes the great fractal of nature. Anyway, if you would like a copy of my original message on this subject, I would be happy to send it to you privately. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 13 04:45:09 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Who's on top? Message-ID: <199612130945.EAA25260@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >Well, things are tough all over, aren't they? > >Seriously, this is just the tip of the iceberg. This morning when I woke >up to the >clock radio they were discussing how many children in rich and poor >countries >are being subjected to child labor. They were also urging Christmas >shoppers >to look for "Made in the USA" tags, to try to get people to stop buying >merchandise >from other countries that are using child labor. > >Men, women, children, animals, the environment. You name it, it's being >abused >because people are walking around in their own disturbed little worlds and >can't get out >of the revolving doors of their own psychological problems. Power, greed, >selfishness, fear, hate, etc. is robbing all of us of the loving support we >all >need to make a go of it on the physical plane. > >No one is in this alone - it just may feel like it at times. > >-Ann E. Bermingham Exactly. This was the point I was trying to make a long time ago when I was attacking sexism in general with the defense of "deny the selfish ego". Nobody seemed to understand me, so I decided to take a different turn and "fight fire with fire". Perhaps by helping others to understand that the problems they face are not only their problems, and that there are many others out there, they will ...broaden their horizons. I don't know. Perhaps there is another approach which I haven't thought of yet. For now, however, I will remain on the sexism subject, for it seems very important to the people (besides TS heirarchy(sp?)) who post on the ng. ={P>- (Exhausted, confused old man with a mustache and beard.) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 13 04:51:45 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612130951.EAA25500@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >This is changing. There was an article I found the Sunday Sun-Times a few >weeks >ago that says that men are entering fields that were traditionally thought >to be for >women. It has to do with the tighter job market and the fact that some men >are >beginning to feel that they are better suited for those jobs. For example, >men are >now training to become nurses. Very true. In fact, just recently, I was hired for the summer at a bank. Unfortunately, I later found out, (actually I knew all along), that I got the job simply because a girl-friend of mine worked there and had a lot of influence. >I just see this as another indication that the Aquarian ideals of equality >are slowly being >put into action. > >> Most men are pigs, I won't deny that. > >But their curly tales are so cute. hehehe. We squeak nicely if you pull them too. >>A male CEO will usually want a good-looking female secretary to >> work for him. This is true. This is what proves my point. A female CEO >will >> refuse to hire a male secretary because she feels that she would be >inhibiting >> the rise of women in the job market if she did so. Damn, I'm stuck. > >Do you have the statistics to back this up? Personally, I'd love to have >a nice young guy for my secretary. ;-) > >-Ann E. Bermingham No. No statistics, but I'll find them. They're out there somewhere. BTW, where do I put in my application? *Big, cheesy grin* --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 13 05:08:49 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612131008.FAA25957@envirolink.org> Alan writes: I write: >>I think that it all depends on what the primary goal is. Does >>understanding come before judging or does judging come before >>understanding. Or should judging even come into play? >> >>Just a thought.:) >>--- >>The Triaist >> >Tom, you, everyone on this and all of the lists are members of the >universal human family mentioned in the TI statement of intent. That is >a common bond shared by all human beings. However, not all human beings >are my friends, and I am not a friend to all human beings. Some I know >for certain are my enemies, although still members of the same human >family. Judging comes into everything in this life somewhere or >another, even if it's only which brand of a product to buy. > >I do not see any reason to relate understanding and judging together as >if they were inevitably connected - seems an odd idea to me. > >Alan Why should it seem odd? If one judges someone, without an understanding of their veiws, how can it be a "fair" judgement? Without an understanding, most of the judgement one makes is based on assumptions rather than facts. Therefore, it seems to me, that without understanding, the judgement made has no "backup" and is based solely on the judge's ideas. Using your example, when you buy a product, and you buy one because of a big bright sign that says "Buy me, I'm better than so-and-so", you are not necessarily buying a product that is better than so-and-so. You haven't examined both products to understand them and therefore make a much better judgement based on the facts. You've made a hasty judgement based on a pretty sign. I'm not sure if this is very clear... ugh. Let me know what you understood from my blubbering please. :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 13 05:11:22 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <199612131011.FAA26029@envirolink.org> liesel f. deutsch writes: >> For instance, if I want a job as a secretary, I probably won't get it >>because I am a man. If I want to be a bank teller. Well, I can pretty >>much forget about that too. And you can't say it is because the "boss" is >>male and, therefore, wants a female secretary/teller. > >I'm weeping real crocodile tears. > >Liesel I'll bet. This is the point I was trying to make. If a man says something to you about how he is oppressed, it is no big deal. If it is a woman, you back her up 100%. Are you a sexist? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 13 05:12:54 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: <199612131012.FAA26055@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199612091503.KAA20016@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >>I'm not sure if this was purposeful or not, but April Joy did not post the >>message. It was actually Alan, who posted a reference written by April Joy. > >Not one word of your quoted post was written or posted by me. >Definitely a big mix-up somewhere. > >Alan Ack. Really? You didn't post the April Joy thing? Who did? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 9:36:27 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: to TTT and Mark Message-ID: <199612131436.JAA29254@leo.vsla.edu> Please don't worry about hurting my feelings with a joke! I can tell when people are making light of a subject (as all my friends do, when the subject is Theosophical reactions to my work) and when they are in deadly earnest. No offense taken. As for my losing royalties, at about 75 cents per book, your sharing of one copy three ways reduces my income a dollar and a half. Money that I won't see until next September anyhow! Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 9:57:12 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Superiority Message-ID: <199612131457.JAA02142@leo.vsla.edu> Dear Tom, I have been disheartened to see the aggresssion level on theos-l back up to the benchmark previously set by a few others who are no longer with us. You are acutely aware of the aggression that has been directed toward you, but seem to be oblivious of the degree to which your own aggression sparked the whole conflagration, and continued to pour gasoline on the fire. This is not said to justify anything anyone else said, but to point out that there is a dysfunctional pattern here that could bear some looking into. Particularly accusing people of *deliberately* misinterpreting you-- that kind of thing implies that you are a mindreader and know the intentions of others. Attributing such evil intentions just makes things worse. Given how many accidental misunderstandings there are in the world, why assume them to be deliberate when you don't know? My main point, though, is to say that your use of "superiority" is really problematic. "In that men are more logical than women, they _are_ superior." As Mark (I think) said, your use of language here seems to leap from statistical generalization to categorical dogmatism. Are men in fact "more logical"? The most the evidence shows me is that according to *some* operational definitions of "logical" in *some* populations, men's scores on this variable have *on the average* been higher than women's. No one would want to fight you if you put it that way. But use of "superior" as a predicate nominative is *very* much laden with centuries of bad feeling over oppression. What if you were to say "In that blacks earn less than whites, they _are_ inferior"? When you get an outraged reaction, you might say "I only meant inferior in income, not that they are generally inferior"-- but that seems disingenuous when you pick a hot-button issue, use polarizing language, and then rather than backing down apologetically continue to escalate tension by accusing others of deliberately misunderstanding you. The whole idea of "superior" and "inferior" is meaningful only in context of linear measurement in which one can score "higher" than another. And even then, it can be said without qualification only about individuals. When you make any such statement about categories, you need plenty of qualifiers in order to make it clear that, for example, you don't mean that *all* women are inferior to *all* men in logical capacity. In short, you are using fighting words, and taking no responsibility for the fighting that ensues. As for the list having a "feminist agenda"-- I never saw one until you came on the scene with polarizing remarks. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 10:23:17 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Eldon's example Message-ID: <199612131523.KAA05447@leo.vsla.edu> Surely it is *just* paranoia on my part, but Eldon's *purely* hypothetical example of a person saying "The leaders of all the theosophical groups are corrupt, power-hungry, ignorant bastards that aren't insightful enough to accept and print my brilliant books" does have a certain personal ring to it. Strange and wonderful how a post ostensibly devoted to showing us all how to communicate in a brotherly/sisterly manner contains within it a little plausibly-deniable attack on a fellow Theosophist! Sorta passive-aggressive, on the purely *hypothetical* and paranoid assumption that this was inspired by/directed at a real person. Maybe Alexis had something to do with Eldon's saying this (He does use phrases like "corrupt, power-hungry, ignorant bastards" WHICH I DON'T) but in fact I'm the only author who submitted his work to all the Theosophical publishers, got it rejected by all, and went on to have it acclaimed as brilliant by some folks within and outside the TSes when a university press published it. So, for the record. My ms. for In Search of the Masters was considered for almost a year by TUP, then for more than a year by TPH and PLP. After they all rejected it (none offering an iota of substantive criticism of my research) I went on to self-publish, and the revision of that self-published work ended up as two SUNY Press titles. As of the middle of 1995, I had worked independently of any Theosophical institutional support for many years, was happy to be published by SUNY, and had continued to try to be on friendly terms with all Theosophical leaders. It was only when hate mail and error-ridden, contemptuous attacks on my work started to come my way that I began to express any real disenchantment with organized Theosophy. But still, I never said and don't believe that: 1. The leaders of all Theosophical groups are corrupt... I certainly don't think Grace Knoche is corrupt, and don't know a thing about the alleged non-leader of ULT. Nor do I have a judgment on the national section heads in the Adyar TS outside this country. As for John Algeo and Radha Burnier, yes I think there is something corrupt about the way the ES secretly controls their agenda for the TS-- which conclusion I reached through evidence having nothing to do with my books. 2. power-hungry... Again, no re: Grace, don't know re: McOwen (sp?), don't know re: most Adyar officials, yes re:Algeo and Burnier. 3. ignorant... No, not regarding any of them. 4. bastards... No, none of them, although Algeo has his moments of which I have been the beneficiary. 5. aren't insightful enough... Yes, true in general about all the Theosophical leadership I fear, and this becomes clearer as I deal with the ARE leadership which shows real vision. 6. to accept and print... see above. I'd say, rather than not insightful enough, "not devoted enough to scholarly inquiry and diversity in perspectives" and maybe "too cowardly." 7. my brilliant books. Never said or implied that they were either brilliant or flawless; they just happen to be the most original and well-researched new interpretation of HPB and her associates that has come along in a very long time. Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:17:08 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: WWW Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell Message-ID: <199612131617.JAA23750@mailhost.azstarnet.com> World Wide Web Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my 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 written by David Reigle, author of the work THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE, etc. (1983). 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 A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web. This copy can be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET at this URL address: http://www.blavatsky.org On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on: "Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky." In this section my paper is introduced with these words: "Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books --- Johnson is selling three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky. Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson." If you do not have access to the World Wide Web, I can send you a paper copy of HOUSE OF CARDS. Please notify me by e-mail at: blafoun@azstarnet.com I have been notified by Dr. David C. Lane that he will also be giving access to my paper on his web page "The Neural Surfer" at the URL address: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/ My paper is NOT available yet at Dr. Lane's homepage but as soon as K. Paul Johnson's "Reply" to my paper is finished and ready for dissemination, I assume both papers will then be available at the "Neural Surfer" location. I also welcome comments on my paper. I have received numerous replies mostly thanking me for writing the paper. I am also looking forward to any comments showing fallacies in my arguments, etc. against Johnson's thesis. I am always open to other people's views on this subject. If I am somehow mistaken in my views, I certainly would like to know. But if someone tells me I have mistaken ideas, then I always ask them to please explain their own views in detail and to go step by step through their thinking process on the subject. Serious consideration of any subject requires this indepth kind of discussion and analysis. Can we afford to ask for any thing less in a world full of such conflicting claims and misinformation? Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:17:08 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: WWW Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell Message-ID: <199612131617.JAA23750@mailhost.azstarnet.com> World Wide Web Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my 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 written by David Reigle, author of the work THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE, etc. (1983). 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 A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web. This copy can be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET at this URL address: http://www.blavatsky.org On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on: "Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky." In this section my paper is introduced with these words: "Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books --- Johnson is selling three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky. Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson." If you do not have access to the World Wide Web, I can send you a paper copy of HOUSE OF CARDS. Please notify me by e-mail at: blafoun@azstarnet.com I have been notified by Dr. David C. Lane that he will also be giving access to my paper on his web page "The Neural Surfer" at the URL address: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/ My paper is NOT available yet at Dr. Lane's homepage but as soon as K. Paul Johnson's "Reply" to my paper is finished and ready for dissemination, I assume both papers will then be available at the "Neural Surfer" location. I also welcome comments on my paper. I have received numerous replies mostly thanking me for writing the paper. I am also looking forward to any comments showing fallacies in my arguments, etc. against Johnson's thesis. I am always open to other people's views on this subject. If I am somehow mistaken in my views, I certainly would like to know. But if someone tells me I have mistaken ideas, then I always ask them to please explain their own views in detail and to go step by step through their thinking process on the subject. Serious consideration of any subject requires this indepth kind of discussion and analysis. Can we afford to ask for any thing less in a world full of such conflicting claims and misinformation? Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:22:33 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Eldon's example Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > > Surely it is *just* paranoia on my part, but Eldon's *purely* > hypothetical example of a person saying "The leaders of all the > theosophical groups are corrupt, power-hungry, ignorant > bastards that aren't insightful enough to accept and print my > brilliant books" does have a certain personal ring to it. Strange and > wonderful how a post ostensibly devoted to showing us all how > to communicate in a brotherly/sisterly manner contains within > it a little plausibly-deniable attack on a fellow Theosophist! > Sorta passive-aggressive, on the purely *hypothetical* and > paranoid assumption that this was inspired by/directed at a > real person. Yes ... I got a bit of a chuckle too - curious how Eldon's purely hypothetical, impersonal examples all seemed to apply shockingly well to specific individuals. I'm sure it is just coincidental. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:39:48 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Superiority Message-ID: <19961213173946.AAA14400@LOCALNAME> At 03:07 PM 12/13/96 +0000, Paul wrote: >accusing >people of *deliberately* misinterpreting you-- that kind of >thing implies that you are a mindreader and know the intentions >of others. Attributing such evil intentions just makes things >worse. Given how many accidental misunderstandings there are >in the world, why assume them to be deliberate when you don't >know? People must "read minds" all the time, that it is not an exact science notwithstanding. To be convicted of murder requires other people to decide what they believed the accused's motives were. It would be difficult for me to think of anything more important than knowing other people's motives. That there can never be 100% certainty about them does not make estimating them inappropriate. I put conscious effort into avoiding cynically assuming the worst, but even as I write this, there are those who insist that I meant something different from what I have explicitly explained probably more than 10 times. If that is not evidence of deliberate mischaracterization, especially by people who claim to be logical and intelligent, I would not know what is. >My main point, though, is to say that your use of "superiority" >is really problematic. My main point is that hostility toward the making of comparisons is problematic. >"In that men are more logical than >women, they _are_ superior." As Mark (I think) said, your use >of language here seems to leap from statistical generalization >to categorical dogmatism. Are men in fact "more logical"? Assume the worst case regarding the accuracy of that statement. Suppose that the least logical woman is more logical than the most logical man. Would even that justify a personal attack on me for saying what I said? Why not simply, calmly, rationally, peacefully, LOGICALLY point out _how_ I was wrong, specifically? If giving others' motives the benefit of the doubt is so good, why was it not applied to me? What might my motives be for making such an inflammatory statement, if it is so obviously false? Why would I keep saying it once its falsehood was pointed out to me? >The >most the evidence shows me is that according to *some* >operational definitions of "logical" in *some* populations, >men's scores on this variable have *on the average* been higher >than women's. No one would want to fight you if you put it >that way. But that would be a weaker statement than I wanted to make, and would constitute a compromise with falsehood. I do not just believe that some men are more logical than some women. I believe that the average man is more logical than the average woman. Conclusions can be induced from a certain sample of individuals to groups. But I have an open mind. If someone wants to try to point out to me how I need to know most people personally before I make general statements about them, as was implied, I will listen. The problem with this, though, is that I am too familiar with probability to stand much chance of believing that samples of populations do not give information about the population in general. And your last statement implies that I must not say anything that anyone disagrees with, or they might start a fight for which I will be responsible. For you to say what you just said, which disagrees with what I said, is no reason we would fight about it. Opinions are of the intuition. Fighting is of the spirit. I am not nearly so concerned with convincing people that my opinions are right as I am with opposing the spirit that it takes to fight those who express dissenting opinions. >But use of "superior" as a predicate nominative is >*very* much laden with centuries of bad feeling over >oppression. What if you were to say "In that blacks earn less >than whites, they _are_ inferior"? I would be happy to make that statement, regardless of how outraged a reaction I would get, in addition to being willing to make many other statements, based on objective considerations, of how different races compare to each other. The distinction between the actual and the potential should be kept in mind. I interpret the statement that atma is not the private property of any individual to mean that all human beings have identical potential. We all have the same root. But that does not mean that the actual development of all human beings is identical, which is the preposterous idea that those who reject all comparisons are implying. If saying that some people, and, by logical extension, some groups of people, are better than others in some ways, is met with hostility by a group of people who claim to believe in truth and in the spirit of brotherhood, how is that my responsibility? Rather than avoiding it, I consider such potential for hostility to be worth seeking out and exposing. Are you saying that the word "superior" is so likely to be misunderstood, and that there is such an absence of alternatives, that attempting to communicate what one believes about comparisons one sees between people should always be regarded as inappropriate? This seems far-fetched, but I am open to the possibility that I am not aware of which words have developed which bad feelings. I am also open to the possibility that I have overestimated the ability of people to be objective about words for which bad feelings have developed, but I do not see how to fault myself for that without faulting others for their lack of objectivity. If generalizations are so inciteful that they cannot be made without being responded to irrationally, then I definitely do not belong here, since I see nothing wrong with making generalizations. >When you get an outraged >reaction, you might say "I only meant inferior in income, not >that they are generally inferior"-- but that seems disingenuous >when you pick a hot-button issue, use polarizing language, and >then rather than backing down apologetically continue to >escalate tension by accusing others of deliberately >misunderstanding you. By now, I believe I have made sufficiently reasonable attempts to clarify what I have said, especially when compared to the absence of attempts to specifically ask what I meant, that I will continue to accuse those who misrepresent what I have said as doing so deliberately. Regarding what you probably mean by a "hot-button issue," my being a straight white male makes it harder for me to empathize with them. I have never lost a job, as far as I know, or been treated with any significant prejudice, because of my race, gender, or sexual orientation. I have been primarily left to my own imagination in developing such empathy, and I am heading in the right direction. Theosophy, and being around particularly compassionate Theosophists, have been a big help. I at least believe that differences between people are illusory and are not inherent. Being labelled sexist when someone of the opposite gender can make many more inflammatory remarks about men and not be so called, is a relatively new experience for me in being prejudiced against. >The whole idea of "superior" and "inferior" is meaningful only >in context of linear measurement in which one can score >"higher" than another. And even then, it can be said without >qualification only about individuals. When you make any such >statement about categories, you need plenty of qualifiers in >order to make it clear that, for example, you don't mean that >*all* women are inferior to *all* men in logical capacity. If I had used language that meant to say that I saw general rules, to which there are exceptions, and if it had been understood to mean that I saw no exceptions, then it would simply have been a misunderstanding that would have been easy to clear up. The reason I believe you are exaggerating my responsibility is that I _have_ explicitly explained the very thing you just said many times, and the attacks are still coming! If explicitly saying, many times, not only that I do not consider all men to be more logical than all women, but I also consider it to be only one aspect of how men and women compare to each other, and that I consider them to be of equal value overall, is not enough to clarify what I said, what would be? How many times should I repeat this and still get personally attacked for it before I should conclude that others are responsible for choosing to fight? >In short, you are using fighting words, and taking no >responsibility for the fighting that ensues. The freedom to be honest and not be personally attacked for it is worth fighting for. That the idea that some groups of people are better than others in some ways is met with such hostility is an attitude that I find worth fighting. (And note that I did not say that _people_ who have such attitudes are worth fighting.) Apparently my most inflammatory statement was the following: "It is natural for men to dominate women, since they are stronger, both physically and volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the leaders." I do not see how those are fighting words. If anyone disagrees with their understanding of what that statement might mean, why not just voice _how_ one disagrees, and if I believe I have been misunderstood or if I have changed my mind due to seeing something, probably from responses to it, that I did not see when I originally said it, I would naturally clarify it and/or change it. By now, I see ways both in which I was misunderstood and ways I which I would rephrase the statement to make it more accurate. But I have yet to be specifically asked what I meant by it, and, once I was personally attacked, I considered _that_ to be the topic of conversation I was primarily interested in, since I care far more about a spirit of brotherhood (and I am willing to use a gender-neutral term for _that_, but I have not seen any suggestions) than I do about whether or not the average man is more logical than the average woman. I put the entire responsibility for any fight that ensued on those who responded personally without seeking any clarification. I have no recollection of starting a fight, but, once it started, I reserved the right to criticize untheosophical behavior by Theosophists. >As for the list >having a "feminist agenda"-- I never saw one until you came on >the scene with polarizing remarks. I saw it before I ever wrote my first article. I was seeking to balance it out. It still confounds me how an article with at least 23 stabs at men has yet to be labelled sexist. To oppose the abuse of such words of accusations of prejudice as sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, etc., may do more to fight prejudice than anything else. They should not be used to describe the mere making of comparisons between groups of people, but should be reserved for cases of prejudice, or they will end up being meaningless and useless. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:03:18 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Intuition vs. Emotion Message-ID: <32B1A866.39F8@earthlink.net> >Alan, >Let us hope they are not foolish enough to try it with me. >Chuck the Heretic Wouldn't dream of it. That would be like trying to argue with a Sphinx. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:47:11 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Friend to all, email expression, and freedom of expression Message-ID: <32B1B2A9.6B09@earthlink.net> Bee Brown: >I will have one of those labels and I won't take it off. Wouldn't it be a >boring world if we all agreed with each other all the time. I thought it was >diversity in unity. We don't ever have to worry about that. Dave Kirk: >But, I'm presently in conflict between saying, "Hey, folks, I know you're >having fun clashing intellectual antlers, but I for one think that perhaps >you could be communicating in a more constructive way," and "Perhaps they >really have a right to express themselves in this way." I felt the same way after I read the guide for email expression, and several protestations regarding attacking the argument and not the person. Dave: >And we could ask the question, "Is there a sign that in all this there's a >growing sense of understanding and acceptance of each other?" It may be too >simple a query for some to accept, but c'est la vie. In my short stint on this list, I see a pattern. An opinion will be put out that will fire up some opposing view points. Then opposing arguments to the opposing view points will be put out, and everyone gets into the fray. When we've all had enough, we all accuse each other for being bad t/Theosophists for getting into the fray in the first place, or in how we got into the fray. Then we all do the good t/Theosophists mantra, agree to disagree (and perhaps hold a secret grudge), and move on. >Finally, I suggest that what's transpiring here seems a microcosm of the >T.S.'s long-term tendency for intellectual conflict and disparity with >stated principles (!) ... can of worms (?) T.S. and everyone else in this world. K. Paul Johnson: >Strange and wonderful how a post ostensibly devoted to showing us all how >to communicate in a brotherly/sisterly manner contains within >it a little plausibly-deniable attack on a fellow Theosophist! >Sorta passive-aggressive, on the purely *hypothetical* and >paranoid assumption that this was inspired by/directed at a >real person. That's my take on this whole talk like a t/Theosophist approach. The funny thing is that once one expresses a viewpoint with "emotion" and frankness, we get rebuked by saying we are not talking like t/Theosophists. I guess the way to be a true t/Theosophist is to be passive-aggressive. The Triaist: >This was the point I was trying to make a long time ago when I was >attacking sexism in general with the defense of "deny the selfish ego". >Nobody seemed to understand me, so I decided to take a different turn and >"fight fire with fire". Perhaps by helping others to understand that the >problems they face are not only their problems, and that there are many others >out there, they will ...broaden their horizons. Yes, I agree. However, any causes requires a defender. Some of the most eloquent people for a cause are ones who have experienced much suffering at some injustices. It requires the selfish ego to say, "That's happened to me. I suffered, and I'm going to do whatever I can to prevent future suffering." Suppose we want to say that everyone, and in particular the wealthy and corporations, should pay heavy taxes to make sure that no one will ever have to starve or be denied medical treatment. The people that heavy taxes are imposed upon will protest that they have alimony and house payments to make. Corporations will say that we are hurting the economy by hurting them. All arguments can be trivialized by stating that "things are tough all over," and "deny the selfish ego." Anyone who defended a cause is guilty of denying the other side, and is guilty of doing it through their ego. Kym: >Heads up, though! If I see posts I feel are sexist, or prejudiced, or >anything else ripe with rot. . .my yap will flap. Free speech is one of the >few things on this planet who prides itself on being no one's friend. Amen to you, Sister! May your "selfish ego" continues! TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:50:01 -0800 From: Art House Subject: April Joy? Message-ID: <32B1B353.8FF@earthlink.net> >Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>>In message <199612091503.KAA20016@envirolink.org>, John Straughn >> writes >>>I'm not sure if this was purposeful or not, but April Joy did not post the >>>message. It was actually Alan, who posted a reference written by April Joy. > >>Not one word of your quoted post was written or posted by me. >>Definitely a big mix-up somewhere. >> >>Alan >Ack. Really? You didn't post the April Joy thing? Who did? --- >The Triaist You mean Alan is not April Joy? S=o) TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:50:16 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612132000.PAA21307@ultra1> >If anyone disagrees with me and >believes that women are more logical than men, or that they are exactly as >logical as each other, then why not simply say so? Some women are more logical than some men. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:03:05 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612132013.PAA22836@ultra1> >Competition does not have to be personal. This is another area in which men >are superior to women. Men can compete with each other in an impersonal >way, separating a business relationship from a personal relationship, much >more so than can women, who are much more prone to resort to personal attacks. I happen to have several books & magazine articles here, in praise of the fact that women, rather than compete, and trying to stamp out or best, each other's ideas, work together, are supportive of what colleagues are doing, use a colleague's findings to help their own research along (and give credit to the colleague) and get more accomplished as a group. I've also seen a writeup of Lyn Margulies, who fiddles with bacteria, I think, (and recently was part of a science panel on C-span). She found indications that among bacteria, rather than survival of the fittest, those entities survive(d) who learn to adapt to new environments. The book passage describes especially the arrival of oxygen on planet earth, which caused a regular holocaust among bacteria. Eventually, some of the bacteria learned how to live with oxygen, and perhaps utilize it, or mix with it, and those survive to the present day. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:15:22 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: fruitism Message-ID: <199612132025.PAA24024@ultra1> Tom, How about being considered a confused fruitist. Maybe that fits? Or would you prefer being a confused carrot? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:27:45 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Sexism etc Message-ID: <19961213202732.AAA29510@LOCALNAME> At 09:19 AM 12/13/96 +0000, Murray Stentiford wrote: >Tom, I responded at length to some of your expressed ideas on 6 December 96, >without anything I can conceive of as being personal insult or name-calling. >Perhaps you did not receive that piece, or maybe it has receded in your mind >in the dust of subsequent battle. I am not holding this up as a fault - just >feel that it needs pointing out. I read your article before, and just re-read it. It was reasonable and intelligent and I basically agreed with it. It stressed the complementariness of men and women and how inseparable thought and emotion are. One potential source of misunderstanding is that all of the Theosophical education I have received draws a distinction between intuition and emotion, which I began my participation in this list by assuming it is generally agreed with. But when statements are made such as "compassion is a feeling," it makes me reconsider this assumption, since it makes me believe that emotion and intuition are being lumped together, as they are by most non-Theosophists. >[Tom] >>I said that, in most marriages, the man is more of a leader than the woman >>is. No one responded to that by disagreeing with it. >> [and later] >> ... there was no sign of >>anything like "I disagree; I believe that ..... > >I addressed this specific issue by providing an outline of an understanding >which would take in differences of strength or development at different >levels of being. Further, an understanding that would allow for time >fluctuations of the relative strengths at each level, even complete >reversals, and that broadened the field of application to more than just >man-woman relationships. Implicit (at least in my intended meaning), was the >idea of *equality of value* coexisting with differences both great and >small. That all made sense to me, but I am not sure you disagreed with my generalization as much as you pointed out exceptions to it and added ideas that I had not considered. >I also tried to dissect out the negative associations inherent in >words "weakness" and "dominate" by providing a (to me) judgment-free but >much more expressive metaphor of complementary elements of polarity where to >receive was not weakness, but could have strengths as great as giving, all >participating in the universal economy of energy at every level. My use of the word "dominate" was probably inappropriate and/or unfortunate, since it was generally understood to have much more Neanderthal, nonconsensual connotations than I intended. I was referring more to, specifically in their relationships with each other, how much more men take the initiative than do women and how natural and preferable to both parties this generally is. The ideal relationship is between equals, and the main reason I did not respond to your article is that I had no basic disagreements with it and I thought of nothing I could have added to it in your descriptions of how male and female energies complement each other. In the aforementioned article, you wrote: >"So then, "liking to be dominated" might become "enjoying the magnetically >receptive role", and liking to dominate could be transformed into "enjoying >the radiant transmissive role", in a context of freedom, empowerment and >mutual respect far beyond those implicit in old terms like domination." I never could have expressed it in this way, but this is closer to what I meant by "dominate." 'Active" and "passive," as spirit is active and matter is passive in their union with each other, would have been better words for me to use. You also mentioned Dion Fortune. I have read "Esoteric Philosophy of Love and Marriage" several times. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:23:03 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: friends to all Message-ID: <199612132033.PAA24870@ultra1> Dear Doss, dear Einar, Thanks for holding up the sensible theosophical end of this dumb discussion. It IS dumb. Your comments are just what we should listen to & follow. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:03:37 +1300 From: Dave Kirk Subject: Is There Life Outside the TS? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961213210337.0068c978@enternet.co.nz> Fellow Theosofossils: Here's a message excerpt from a horticulturally-based list; I read this with interest: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >Dear (.......): > >I truly appreciate your comments and advice. One great desire of the one >writing here is that one day we all could live as brothers. I understand >that cacti and other succulents are part of the human heritage and we, the >mexican people, should share them with the world; however, the first thing >to sustain a world brotherhood is to respect each others and let our >plants and animals, the only companion that we have in this Earth, live >freely in their habitat. I think is much to do yet in both side of this >problem. > >There is no enterprise more important than humankind and we must learn to >live in harmony. Walt Whitman, the poet, said: > >I celebrate myself and sing myself, >what I assume you shall assume, >for every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regards to all, Dave - - Dave Kirk New Zealand >"Once you turn it off, there are an infinite number of channels >to choose from." > -Another bus voice From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 13 16:11:34 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <199612132111.QAA26529@envirolink.org> liesel f. deutsch writes: >Tom, > > How about being considered a confused fruitist. Maybe that fits? Or >would you prefer being a confused carrot? > >Liesel I want to be a carrot. Things would be so much simpler, I'm sure. Could somebody PLEASE make me a carrot! :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:32:49 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <19961213213237.AAA27835@LOCALNAME> At 08:19 PM 12/13/96 +0000, Liesel wrote: >I happen to have several books & magazine articles here, in praise of the >fact that women, rather than compete, and trying to stamp out or best, each >other's ideas, work together, are supportive of what colleagues are doing, >use a colleague's findings to help their own research along (and give credit >to the colleague) and get more accomplished as a group. I've also seen a >writeup of Lyn Margulies, who fiddles with bacteria, I think, (and recently >was part of a science panel on C-span). She found indications that among >bacteria, rather than survival of the fittest, those entities survive(d) who >learn to adapt to new environments. The book passage describes especially >the arrival of oxygen on planet earth, which caused a regular holocaust >among bacteria. Eventually, some of the bacteria learned how to live with >oxygen, and perhaps utilize it, or mix with it, and those survive to the >present day. > >Liesel > Competition is masculine, and cooperation is feminine. There is a time and place for both of them. In the ways that cooperation is appropriate, women excel. I remember when Pat Buchanan said that he thought men were more competitive than women, and Alan Dershowitz labelled him "anti-women." I agree with Mr. Buchanan, and I disagree that his statement is "anti-women." There may be nothing so obvious as the downside of competition. War may have some benefits in generally arranging for the fittest to survive, but it would be hard to defend it in any given case as being a better solution than cooperation would have been. The virtues of cooperation, as you have pointed out, are also obvious, even in predominantly competitive activities. It is no accident that the "Allies" won World War 2. It is hardly only "rugged individualism" that accounts for the greatness of the "United" States. As I believe with masculine and feminine, I believe that cooperation and competition are equal opposites. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:49:47 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <19961213214939.AAA4853@LOCALNAME> At 08:29 PM 12/13/96 +0000, Liesel wrote: >Tom, > > How about being considered a confused fruitist. Maybe that fits? Or >would you prefer being a confused carrot? > >Liesel > Since the "sexism" discussion has not been nearly as heated as I had hoped, let me state the following: I will gladly pay more than $1 per pound for raspberries, but I refuse to pay more than 39 cents a pound for bananas. Not only has there never been a banana that has been as good as the worst raspberry, but there is not even any way that any banana is as good as any raspberry. Raspberries are prettier, juicier, they taste better, and they must be more healthy in every conceivable way, regardless of the lack of facts that I have to back it up. Since the idea that bananas are more hardy and less perishable would conflict with my conclusion, it must be a false idea. If anyone accuses me of fruitism, I will claim that bananas are really vegetables. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:24:57 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <961213182457_369519092@emout03.mail.aol.com> The good Lucifer know's I've been trying to stay out of this mess, but reading the header on this exchange I can't help wonder how many of us who have been on the list for a while aren't starting to wonder what we would be reading if a certain princely friend of mine were still around. Hoo Hah! Would the fireworks be going off! (Remember the fruitcake flap?) Just try to keep it civil and not threaten physical violence. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:54:22 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > The good Lucifer know's I've been trying to stay out of this mess, but > reading the header on this exchange I can't help wonder how many of us who > have been on the list for a while aren't starting to wonder what we would be > reading if a certain princely friend of mine were still around. > Hoo Hah! Would the fireworks be going off! > > (Remember the fruitcake flap?) > > Just try to keep it civil and not threaten physical violence. > > Chuck the Heretic > It *would* be cool if Alexis was still around. He's as far on the left as the "dominator" is on the right. And he wouldn't have gotten bored as quickly as most of the rest of us have. (I mean, geez, if someone's gonna throw down an intellectual gauntlet so we can have a little fun, they ought to at least have some sort of weaponry to make it an interesting game - the Rush Limbaugh subplane of the astral plane gets kinda dull pretty quickly). Say Chuck, have you spoken with Alexis lately? Just how the devil *is* he doing anyway? I half expected to see him fomenting revolution outside the Republican National Convention this summer. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:33:01 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Theosophist Friends Message-ID: <199612140012.TAA27801@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: m.k. ramadoss > On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > reading yet. But I did appreciate your short piece on the > > Bahai and their problems with the Internet. It was truly > > Ann: Can you excerpt or summarize the Bahai problems with the Internet? > Due to the unusual nature of the Internet medium, many of the > traditionalist type of organizations are going to have great trouble in > coming to grips with it. > Essentially, it's about a large organization, who had control over their communications for a long time and became very upset that individuals in the organization could establish a mailing list and discuss issues that they felt shouldn't be aired. Not really being thoroughly knowledgeable on the subject, I'd be afraid to tackle commentary. Perhaps KPJohnson would like to comment. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:39:42 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Equality? Message-ID: <199612140012.TAA27807@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: m.k. ramadoss > > We have seen several msgs on the question of superiority /inferiority. > > Some thoughts came to my mind. > > No two human beings are like. > Am I superior to my little girl of 10? She can sing and play violin very > well and I cannot. > > Am I superior to my little boy of 3? His vision is 20/18. Mine without > correction is 20/60? > > I am tall and my brother short. Am I superior to him? > > My wife is a fast thinker. I am a slow thinker. So is she superior to me? > > I am bald. My sixteen year old has lot of hair. Am I superior/or inferior > to my sixteen year old? > > Probably we cannot answer any of the above questions. > > Only thing we can say is that in some respects one is better at certain > things and the other is better in other things. > > So fundamentally it seems no one is superior or inferior to any one. > > If I keep this in my mind all the time, it will make it easier for me to > deal with other people with whom I have to interact. > > MKR > A truly superior post, Doss. A. E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:51:58 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Tom Robertson, Theosophist Message-ID: <32B1FA2D.80F@sprynet.com> RIhle@aol.com wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky writes--> > Tom is my brother. I do not, however, believe that the Theosophical Society > is the right place for him at this time. > > Richard Ihle writes--> > Well, I'm not sure I agree with you here, Bart. > > I think it may have something to do with a possible difference in how we > regard the ~Theosophical~ in the ~Theosophical Society~. Some people insist > that it refers to SPECIFIC DOCTRINE (usually HPB's writings); other people > think it properly refers to an EPISTEMOLOGY which gives potential validity to > "knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from, > transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception." The only qualification for belonging to the Theosophical Society is endorsement of the Three Objects. Tom's statements to which I was replying strongly implied that he did not agree with the First Object, in spite of his protestations otherwise. Note that I did not say that he was not right for the Theosophical Society; I said that I did not believe that the Theosophical Society was right for him. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:58:58 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: [Brotherhood?] Message-ID: <32B1FBD2.2073@sprynet.com> be94bmp wrote: > arguments may be weak compared,but might I suggest that the questions about > whether men or women are superior are in fact irrelevant. The argument is not which one is superior, but whether there is superiority based on gender. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:04:24 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Sexism etc Message-ID: <199612140104.SAA10045@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: > I was referring more to, >specifically in their relationships with each other, how much more men take >the initiative than do women and how natural and preferable to both parties >this generally is. No, it is not "natural and preferable." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 18:10:49 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <199612140110.SAA10229@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: > It is hardly only >"rugged individualism" that accounts for the greatness of the "United" >States. Why did you put quotes around "United?" Please keep in mind, with your obvious patriotic zeal, that there are others on this list who are not in or from America. Just a little somethin' to think about. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:22:11 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Eldon's example Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961213172209.006901e8@mail.deltanet.com> At 12:29 PM 12/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> Surely it is *just* paranoia on my part, but Eldon's *purely* >> hypothetical example of a person saying "The leaders of all the >> theosophical groups are corrupt, power-hungry, ignorant >> bastards that aren't insightful enough to accept and print my >> brilliant books" does have a certain personal ring to it. Strange and >> wonderful how a post ostensibly devoted to showing us all how >> to communicate in a brotherly/sisterly manner contains within >> it a little plausibly-deniable attack on a fellow Theosophist! >> Sorta passive-aggressive, on the purely *hypothetical* and >> paranoid assumption that this was inspired by/directed at a >> real person. > >Yes ... I got a bit of a chuckle too - curious how Eldon's purely >hypothetical, impersonal examples all seemed to apply shockingly well to >specific individuals. I'm sure it is just coincidental. > (-:), -JRC > I picked examples across a spectrum of judgement passing that has gone on the list. The examples included a softening of a position regarding psychism -- so I'm included too. I was expecting some people to come in and say "yes, I can appreciate the examples, and here's one from my experience". The point is that we all may be doing these things, experiencing miscommunication and presuming what others are saying. When Paul presumes he is being singled out for a passive-aggressive attack, and you happily agree, both without asking me if that was my intent, you're both doing the very thing I'm trying to make people aware of and not do. (I did not particularly have him in mind, and recall a number of times when people have complained about not getting published by the theosophical groups and a number of times when people have been strongly putting down the motives and integrity of the people running the groups.) I've had opportunity to experience both sides of miscommunication on this list in the past, as have you and many others. It's something that newcomers may not be able to help, not having sufficient experience in this new media. But certainly with years of experience, the majority of us can try to be more open and direct. That includes not presuming the motives and intent of others, insisting that one's dark suspicions are real without bothering to ask for clarification. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:37:41 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Eldon's example Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961213173739.006d4490@mail.deltanet.com> Paul: >Surely it is *just* paranoia on my part, but Eldon's *purely* >hypothetical example of a person saying "The leaders of all the >theosophical groups are corrupt, power-hungry, ignorant >bastards that aren't insightful enough to accept and print my >brilliant books" does have a certain personal ring to it. Strange and >wonderful how a post ostensibly devoted to showing us all how >to communicate in a brotherly/sisterly manner contains within >it a little plausibly-deniable attack on a fellow Theosophist! >Sorta passive-aggressive, on the purely *hypothetical* and >paranoid assumption that this was inspired by/directed at a >real person. Sorry you've felt that I'm taking on you and your books. I wasn't. My example was hypothetical, based upon many stray comments made by different people over the years on theos-l, and not with you in mind. >Maybe Alexis had something to do with Eldon's saying this (He >does use phrases like "corrupt, power-hungry, ignorant bastards" >WHICH I DON'T) but in fact I'm the only author who submitted his >work to all the Theosophical publishers, got it rejected by all, >and went on to have it acclaimed as brilliant by some folks within >and outside the TSes when a university press published it. My example was written the particular way it was for dramatic effect, not to blast your or any particular person. It was an exaggeration. You don't need to defend your record in response to my example of miscommunication. Although your immediate reaction, without first *asking me* what I meant, illustrates how miscommunication can happen. I'm glad that you don't think that the theosophical leadership is as bad as my example, an exaggeration, would make it seem. But what impression do many people get on this list in reading some of the statements that have been made in the past by others? I'm sorry if I've unintentionally upset you. My interest was in dealing with the problem of miscommunication, taking it head on, since things have degenerated, as they often do, into name calling and high anger on the list. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:40:32 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: [Brotherhood?] Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, be94bmp wrote: > Hello Brothers and Sisters, > > I'm new to this list and I'm truly glad that we have it. However, I've read a > number of the threads which sadden me. I've been a member of the TS here in > the UK for about 2 years now and I've never come across this type of thing. Very glad to see you here. The Internet is a totally different medium than every other medium we use to communicate. Many things you see that may sadden you is just noise and as you keep going you will find that each one here is very committed to T/theosophy in his/her own way and that is why they are willing to take the time to read all the messages and respond to them. It takes considerable amount of time each day to just read the messages, not to mention about responding. All the range of messages are ok here only because it is not directly or indirectly controlled or censored by any Theosophical Organization. It was setup by the foresight of one T/theosophist - John E Mead and he is lurking and you will rarely see him. The uniqueness of this and other theos-xxx lists is that from time to time you will find information which is unavailable from any source since most of those who controls those sources would censor anything that they think reflects badly on them or their ideas of what T/theosophy is. More you are subscribed, you will like it more. > There seems to be a lot of anger there in the US about something and I don't > know what. Call me naive but I thought theosophy was all about brotherhood From time to time, you will find issues affecting the organizational matters of the Theosophical Society in America will be discussed. Thesophy is one thing -- TS and the organizational matters along with the money and other matters complicate things and this is the only venue to discuss some of those things. The organizational leaders control and censor the content of the Official Publication and so what else do you expect. > [read sisterhood too!], regardless of whether you are a member of the TS or > not, and yet I hear all these arguments about "who's the true theosophist?" > Surely a "true theosophist" wouldn't even contemplate such questions since > that might be considered egotism,might it not?! We all may discuss who is a true theosophist - and with wide range of views on it. Even HPB did not define what Theosophy is; so how can any one define or try to describe who is a true theosophist? It is an impossible task except that each one of us can come up with a definition which is just one's opinion and nothing more. > Also, I realise from the start that my mental apparatus isn't in the same > category as some of those on this list and so perhaps my philosophical > arguments may be weak compared,but might I suggest that the questions about > whether men or women are superior are in fact irrelevant. For those Many of us on this list are just begginers and with low level of mental apparatus and I would be the first one to admit that I would be the first in that category. In our ignorance we may be imagining that we know a lot and only to find all that is all wrong - this happens in retrospect some time in the future. So don't despair. You are in the right place and you have very good company. > further on the Path than most I think personality can be quite a destructive I have a real problem here. How does any one who where they are on the Path and how could they compare how they are doing relative to someone else. Again how does any one know whether there is one Path or multitudes of Paths. We need a living Adept -- if we can locate one -- to tell us. > thing and I can quite imagine that those who suggest one or the other as > being superior are simply expressing the active and passive principles in the > most natural way according to their natures, though it may not be what they > actually know to be the Truth. Again most of can only speculate about what is Truth. If we find Truth, can it be described in words and can it at all communicated to any one? As a novice I think I do not know. > Finally,I'd like to ask the group what they believe to be insanity. Someone > suggested that to believe that there is nothing to perceive in Truth - > please forgive me if those aren't the exact words,[it seems there is a > tendency for some people get easily offended by not getting it exactly > correct and go for the throat and consequently waste other people's time on > meaningless arguments] - but this is what I believe. If I am "insane" then > what of the Universal Mind - does it perceive anything at all, if not is It > insane? If it is, what does this mean for the rest of us?!! > Thank you for bearing with me on this long post. > On the fundamental question of T/theosophy and TS, I would go back to what the Adepts told AP Sinnet several times. They want something to be done to help orphan Humanity. All the fine points of the mechanics of the man/woman and universe etc., are all simply speculation until such time each one of us from direct knowledge know these details. We can all repeat like parrots what is said in one book or the other, but they are all second hand. > Namaste! > > With Love and Light we can heal the World > > Ben > > I agree. We can help Humanity by helping all living beings with which we come into contact every day. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:21:08 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <1w+bfmAEEgsyEwUY@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <961213182457_369519092@emout03.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >The good Lucifer know's I've been trying to stay out of this mess, but >reading the header on this exchange I can't help wonder how many of us who >have been on the list for a while aren't starting to wonder what we would be >reading if a certain princely friend of mine were still around. >Hoo Hah! Would the fireworks be going off! With loud bangs and flapddodle. > >(Remember the fruitcake flap?) > >Just try to keep it civil and not threaten physical violence. > Right. >Chuck the Heretic How far? 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, 14 Dec 1996 01:11:08 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Blubbering and burbling Message-ID: In message <199612131008.FAA25957@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >Using your example, when you buy a product, and you buy one because of a big >bright sign that says "Buy me, I'm better than so-and-so", you are not >necessarily buying a product that is better than so-and-so. You haven't >examined both products to understand them and therefore make a much better >judgement based on the facts. You've made a hasty judgement based on a pretty >sign. I'm not sure if this is very clear... ugh. Let me know what you >understood from my blubbering please. :) I understand that you seem (note seem) to be using a double standard, and introducing a term into the matter which was not present in the original post which I picked up on. The example above, for instance, is a judgment based upon a *lack* of understanding. It is not a "fair" judgment - which is the new term you have introduced. Your original post did not use "fair" as a referent. So now we have (IMO) introduced the concept of justice into the equation. In my experience, all judgments are based upon subjective and personal criteria based upon experience; experience which is good or bad, short or plentiful. Judgement is, in the first and last analysis, based upon how we FEEL, although a great deal of thinking may go into the process before the judgment is made. And which is the correct spelling of Judg(e)ment! Burble ... (What's the logo for an old guy without a beard?) 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, 14 Dec 1996 00:54:51 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: In message <199612131012.FAA26055@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >Ack. Really? You didn't post the April Joy thing? Who did? April Joy. Alan [sigh] --------- 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, 13 Dec 1996 19:53:09 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Equality? Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > A truly superior post, Doss. > > A. E. Bermingham Thanks for your response. When we have the great opportunity to help anyone or anything we come across and make life easier, let us all be alert to opportunities so that we do not miss them when there is one. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:49:41 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Self-Expression Message-ID: In message <1.5.4.32.19961213060043.0068f97c@enternet.co.nz>, Dave Kirk writes >I'd say that the will or opinion of the silent majority could usefully >assert itsef from time to time, in order to keep a balance. PLEASE! 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, 14 Dec 1996 01:14:29 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: In message <199612132111.QAA26529@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >I want to be a carrot. Things would be so much simpler, I'm sure. Could >somebody PLEASE make me a carrot! :) > >--- >The Triaist You are now a carrot. 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, 14 Dec 1996 00:58:35 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Friend to All Message-ID: In message <199612130725.AAA24112@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >Carrying out the garbage is >theosophy (or maybe that's Zen). It's part of the plan, I should think, and VERY necessary! > >Heads up, though! If I see posts I feel are sexist, or prejudiced, or >anything else ripe with rot. . .my yap will flap. Free speech is one of the >few things on this planet who prides itself on being no one's friend. Keep flapping your yap. Oh yes. :-) 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, 13 Dec 1996 18:24:51 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612140244.VAA29404@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > Ann E. Bermingham writes: > >This is changing. There was an article I found the Sunday Sun-Times a few > >weeks > >ago that says that men are entering fields that were traditionally thought > >to be for > >women. It has to do with the tighter job market and the fact that some men > >are > >beginning to feel that they are better suited for those jobs. For example, > >men are > >now training to become nurses. > > Very true. In fact, just recently, I was hired for the summer at a bank. > Unfortunately, I later found out, (actually I knew all along), that I got the > job simply because a girl-friend of mine worked there and had a lot of > influence. Someone once told me it's not what you know, but who you know. John: > >> Most men are pigs, I won't deny that. > > ANN: > >But their curly tales are so cute. > John: > hehehe. We squeak nicely if you pull them too. Ann: Squeaks are for mice. Squeals are for everyone. Ann: > >Do you have the statistics to back this up? Personally, I'd love to have > >a nice young guy for my secretary. ;-) > > John: > No. No statistics, but I'll find them. They're out there somewhere. BTW, > where do I put in my application? *Big, cheesy grin* > --- Yes, the truth is out there, John. Application? Unfortunately, the position of my personal assistant is currently being filled by my husband. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 22:11:29 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <961213221128_1388823911@emout06.mail.aol.com> Alan, How far? who knows, but it's getting to the point I don't even want to look at the list. And when it gets to be too much for me..... Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 20:19:11 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Eldon's example Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > I'm glad that you don't think that the theosophical leadership > is as bad as my example, an exaggeration, would make it seem. > But what impression do many people get on this list in reading > some of the statements that have been made in the past by others? > As one of those who probably *has* used words close to those as extreme as your example ... I *hope* the impression people get is that this list is not under the control of any Theosophical rulers, whom, at least in the Wheaton TS, marginalize and silence any dissent that does not suit their fancy, exert tight control over all organs of TS publication, and have now so rigged the elections process that virtually no one other than those they choose has much of a chance of gaining any power in the organization. If things get sometimes extreme on this list, it is perhaps because it is one of the few places in which those who wish to control the discourse have absolutely no ability to do so. But if the TS permitted discussion to be free and open within its ranks, the need for a pressure relief valve (a role often played by this list) would not be nearly as necessary. So far as I go, frankly, when I first came on the list, one of its *most* attractive features was that people were openly discussing the details of all manner of things HQ had done, that I was slightly aware of, but that were thoroughly supressed within the TS. The people on this list, for instance, probably have a far greater awareness of all sides of the Boston Lodge fiasco - and the fact that HQ spent several hundred thousand dollars suing one of its own Lodges - than anyone else in the organization (save the members of the Lodge itself). All that came from HQ was (IMO) a very one-sided point of view ... their own ... and the thought that there might be another side to the story, let alone the thought that boths sides might actually be presented in the AT .... were not ideas HQ apparently wanted anything to do with. HQ has for some time gotten away with an enormous number of things that are, IMO, quite corrupt, because they had almost complete control over the means of discussion among the membership. On this list they do not, but the intensity of dissent voiced here is not a negative quality of the list, but rather a symptom of deep dissent within the Society that has no other outlet - and any thought that anyone should restrain the tone or content of their dissent on this list makes me very uncomfortable - as its the only place where dissent can even speak. And that is directly due to the actions of HQ. (PS. Good to see you back Eldon ... how's the new list/publication going?) Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:03:58 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <19961214050346.AAA7865@LOCALNAME> At 01:20 AM 12/14/96 +0000, Kym wrote: >Tom wrote: > >> It is hardly only >>"rugged individualism" that accounts for the greatness of the "United" >>States. > >Why did you put quotes around "United?" Since it could not have been to emphasize how it relates to cooperation, I forget. >Please keep in mind, with your obvious patriotic zeal, that there are others >on this list who are not in or from America. Just a little somethin' to >think about. . . I had no idea there _was_ any other country besides the United States. When did this happen and why was it allowed? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:03:09 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Friend to all, email expression, and freedom of expression Message-ID: <199612140903.CAA18084@snowden.micron.net> TTT S=o) writes: >That's my take on this whole talk like a t/Theosophist approach. The >funny thing is that once one expresses a viewpoint with "emotion" and >frankness, we get rebuked by saying we are not talking like >t/Theosophists. I guess the way to be a true t/Theosophist is to be >passive-aggressive. Oh, yes, we all love honesty - all long as it's in someone else's neighborhood. >Yes, I agree. However, any causes requires a defender. Some of the >most eloquent people for a cause are ones who have experienced much >suffering at some injustices. It requires the selfish ego to say, >"That's happened to me. I suffered, and I'm going to do whatever I can >to prevent future suffering." Suppose we want to say that everyone, and >in particular the wealthy and corporations, should pay heavy taxes to >make sure that no one will ever have to starve or be denied medical >treatment. The people that heavy taxes are imposed upon will protest >that they have alimony and house payments to make. Corporations will >say that we are hurting the economy by hurting them. All arguments can >be trivialized by stating that "things are tough all over," and "deny >the selfish ego." Anyone who defended a cause is guilty of denying the >other side, and is guilty of doing it through their ego. Well, well, well, what have we here? Thoughtful insight, keen observation, valuable lessons and just some plain cool writing all in one paragraph?! God, I hate posts like this. . .[joking :-)] Way to go. . .sister o' mine. pax vobiscum, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 14 04:14:04 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: <199612140914.EAA13233@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199612131012.FAA26055@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >>Ack. Really? You didn't post the April Joy thing? Who did? > >April Joy. > >Alan [sigh] Ack squared. That's impossible, she's dead! jk. I've never seen April Joy on here before. She only pops in every once in a while? Mumble. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 14 04:15:53 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <199612140915.EAA13278@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199612132111.QAA26529@envirolink.org>, John Straughn > writes >>I want to be a carrot. Things would be so much simpler, I'm sure. Could >>somebody PLEASE make me a carrot! :) >> >>--- >>The Triaist > >You are now a carrot. > >Alan I KNEW you'd say that. And I figured Chuck would actually do it. *shrug* Unfortunately, things are still complicated. Perhaps being a carrot isn't as wonderful as I thought. *sigh* --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 14 04:22:57 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612140922.EAA13380@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >Someone once told me it's not what you know, but who you know. How very true. >John: >> hehehe. We squeak nicely if you pull them too. > >Ann: >Squeaks are for mice. Squeals are for everyone. It was a typo! A TYPO I say! >Ann: >> >Do you have the statistics to back this up? Personally, I'd love to >have >> >a nice young guy for my secretary. ;-) >> > >John: >> No. No statistics, but I'll find them. They're out there somewhere. >BTW, >> where do I put in my application? *Big, cheesy grin* >> --- >Yes, the truth is out there, John. Statistics = truth? Nah. >Application? Unfortunately, the position of my personal assistant is >currently being filled by my husband. > >-Ann E. Bermingham I don't want to be your husband. I want to be your secretary. I'm fairly young, nice, hard-working, efficient, etc. Am I selling myself to you yet? If I go any furthur, we might see a little bs coming up...:) --- The Triaist, who can't seem to learn that you are NOT supposed to flirt with married women. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:21:04 +0000 From: Alan Subject: WWW Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell Message-ID: In message <199612131617.JAA23750@mailhost.azstarnet.com>, Blavatsky Foundation writes >My paper is NOT available yet at Dr. Lane's homepage but as soon as >K. Paul Johnson's "Reply" to my paper is finished and ready for >dissemination, I assume both papers will then be available Comment: The use of quote marks in reference to KPJ's putative reply, by all publishing conventions known to me, suggests that the issue is prejudged, and negatively so. Please explain this apparent bias in the light of your lengthy remarks suggesting the value of objective evaluation of both data and opinions. Many thanks, 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 Dec 14 04:26:52 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <199612140926.EAA13461@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >I had no idea there _was_ any other country besides the United States. When >did this happen and why was it allowed? The darn Teamsters. It was all their fault. Them and Elvis. It's a conspiracy. I just thought of something... --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 02:39:41 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: United States thing Message-ID: <199612140939.CAA18281@snowden.micron.net> >At 01:20 AM 12/14/96 +0000, Kym wrote: >>Tom wrote: >> >>> It is hardly only >>>"rugged individualism" that accounts for the greatness of the "United" >>>States. >> >>Why did you put quotes around "United?" > >Since it could not have been to emphasize how it relates to cooperation, I >forget. > > >>Please keep in mind, with your obvious patriotic zeal, that there are others >>on this list who are not in or from America. Just a little somethin' to >>think about. . . > >I had no idea there _was_ any other country besides the United States. When >did this happen and why was it allowed? Is this an attempt at humor? Is there really a 'real person' behind these "Tom Robertson" posts? Or is this simply another bedlamite ranting, another 'tommy turd' I may step in lest I skimp on diligence? What do I do? What approach do I take? The Theosophical thing to do would be to give him the benefit of the doubt. . .but I'm not sure I'm a Theosophist. . .so that isn't going to help me. Man, I hate these moral dilemmas. Should I look upon him as friend rather than foe? Should I recognize him as a brother. . . Whoa! Jump back there girl! Get a grip! You almost had me there, Tombo. That was close. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:28:24 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: United States thing Message-ID: <19961214102812.AAA12217@LOCALNAME> At 09:43 AM 12/14/96 +0000, Kym wrote: >>At 01:20 AM 12/14/96 +0000, Kym wrote: >>>Tom wrote: >>> >>>> It is hardly only >>>>"rugged individualism" that accounts for the greatness of the "United" >>>>States. >>> >>>Why did you put quotes around "United?" >> >>Since it could not have been to emphasize how it relates to cooperation, I >>forget. >> >> >>>Please keep in mind, with your obvious patriotic zeal, that there are others >>>on this list who are not in or from America. Just a little somethin' to >>>think about. . . >> >>I had no idea there _was_ any other country besides the United States. When >>did this happen and why was it allowed? > >Is this an attempt at humor? No, it was a _successful_ attempt, obviously. >Is there really a 'real person' behind these >"Tom Robertson" posts? No. Official Theosophical doctrine says that personality is an illusion. Especially mine. >Or is this simply another bedlamite ranting, another >'tommy turd' I may step in lest I skimp on diligence? As hard as I tried, I did not understand this sentence. Are you calling me a turd? >What do I do? What >approach do I take? First of all, you should thank me for being such a spiritual ally to you that I have given you such a rare opportunity for growth in tolerance, patience, and compassion. >The Theosophical thing to do would be to give him the >benefit of the doubt. . . There is still doubt? >but I'm not sure I'm a Theosophist. . .so that >isn't going to help me. My only comment to that is that I have no comment. >Man, I hate these moral dilemmas. Should I look >upon him as friend rather than foe? Could I ever make you laugh enough to look past my sexism? >Should I recognize him as a brother. . . You would probably rather be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, where you OUGHT to be. >Whoa! Jump back there girl! Get a grip! You almost had me there, Tombo. >That was close. . . That was cruel to get my hopes up like that. But I'll keep trying. Will you marry me? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:25:24 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: How far? Message-ID: In message <961213221128_1388823911@emout06.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >How far? who knows, but it's getting to the point I don't even want to look >at the list. And when it gets to be too much for me..... > >Chuck the Heretic A feeling shared with some frequency ... 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, 14 Dec 1996 14:27:40 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Eldon's example Message-ID: In message , JRC writes >As one of those who probably *has* used words close to those as extreme as >your example ... I *hope* the impression people get is that this list is >not under the control of any Theosophical rulers, whom, at least in the >Wheaton TS, marginalize and silence any dissent that does not suit their >fancy, exert tight control over all organs of TS publication Dear JRC, I could have written the above myself, except substitute England TS for Wheaton TS. 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, 14 Dec 1996 14:34:39 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 747 Message-ID: Hmmm - I haven't checked the current subscription list since November, but someone posted either *as* "April Joy" or quoting "April Joy." Maybe there is someone called "Spring Fun" doing it. Anyhow, 'twasn't I. Alan In message <199612140914.EAA13233@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>In message <199612131012.FAA26055@envirolink.org>, John Straughn >> writes >>>Ack. Really? You didn't post the April Joy thing? Who did? >> >>April Joy. >> >>Alan [sigh] > >Ack squared. That's impossible, she's dead! jk. I've never seen April Joy on >here before. She only pops in every once in a while? Mumble. > >--- >The Triaist > > --------- 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, 14 Dec 1996 07:16:03 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612141650.LAA02666@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > >BTW, > >> where do I put in my application? *Big, cheesy grin* > Ann: > >Application? Unfortunately, the position of my personal assistant is > >currently being filled by my husband. > > John: > I don't want to be your husband. I want to be your secretary. I'm fairly > young, nice, hard-working, efficient, etc. Am I selling myself to you yet? > If I go any furthur, we might see a little bs coming up...:) > When I get as big-time as Ann Rice, I'll keep you in mind. Till then, husband is working for services in trade. Like car rides, clean underwear, tasty meals, etc. I believe you'd expect a salary. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:46:38 -0800 From: Art House Subject: Banana-Raspberry and Nuts Bread Message-ID: <32B2F60D.10E0@earthlink.net> BANANA-RASPBERRY AND NUTS BREAD 2 c. sifted flour 3/4 c. sugar 1 tbsp. baking powder 1/2 tsp. salt 1/2 c. quick-cooking oats 1/3 c. butter or regular margarine 3/4 c. chopped walnuts 1/2 c. milk 1/2 tsp. vanilla 1 egg 1 c. mashed, ripe bananas (about 3 medium) 1 c. fresh raspberries Into large bowl, sift together flour, sugar, baking powder and salt. Stir in oats. With pastry blender, cut in butter until coarse crumbs form. Stir in walnuts; set aside. In small bowl, mix milk, vanilla and egg until well blended. Stir in bananas and raspberries until well blended. Add milk mixture to dry ingredients; stir just until moistened. Pour batter into greased 9x5x3" loaf pan. Bake in 350 degrees oven 1 hour 15 minutes, or until loaf is golden brown and toothpick inserted in center comes out clean. Cool in pan 10 minutes. Remove; cool on rack. Wrap in foil. Let stand, overnight, in cool, dry place before serving. Makes 1 loaf. TTT (Yum!) S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 07:27:40 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Sexism etc Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961215133956.1c7faee6@iprolink.co.nz> Tom >> Tom, I responded at length to some of your expressed ideas on 6 December >> 96 .... > >I read your article before, and just re-read it. It was reasonable and >intelligent and I basically agreed with it. It stressed the >complementariness of men and women and how inseparable thought and emotion >are. Well .... I'm a little surprised, but pleasantly so, to hear that you basically agreed. >That all made sense to me, but I am not sure you disagreed with my >generalization as much as you pointed out exceptions to it and added ideas >that I had not considered. I thought I did much more than that. I was expressing a view that was considerably broader than the one I'd gathered you held at the time, and was free of the negative associations I perceived in some of your phrases. I chose to concentrate on setting out this view rather than on disagreement, because I believed it had the potential to synthesise some of the loose and conflicting ends in the debate into a coherent picture. >One potential source of misunderstanding is that all of the >Theosophical education I have received draws a distinction between >intuition and emotion, which I began my participation in this list by >assuming it is generally agreed with. But when statements are made such >as "compassion is a feeling," it makes me reconsider this assumption, >since it makes me believe that emotion and intuition are being lumped >together, as they are by most non-Theosophists. This reminds me: I wondered why you said that emotion is a source of information (if I remember correctly). That seemed a particularly mentally-oriented way to define it, and rather off to one side. The only information I can see being transmitted is the fact that the person is feeling the emotion, plus the impact of the energy. Can you elaborate? I don't recall seeing "compassion is a feeling," in connection with the sexism debate, but to my mind, the term compassion covers something of a spectrum, ranging from a vague kind of sympathy to a fully conscious experience of identification with another being - knowing what it is like to be that being. I do not think it's correct to exclude the field of emotion from the state of compassion because, in a whole person (meaning all levels functioning, with minimal fragmentation between and within them), different sorts of feelings would quite naturally arise from the experience, eg various shades of love, which could be powerful motivators to action, or anger, to remove an injustice. On the other hand, I wouldn't just lump emotion and intuition together, either. I'm familiar with the Theosophical idea that intuition is a function of Buddhi and emotion of the Astral level but, as the years have gone by, I've come to see these terms and this classification as rather inadequate - inevitably, of course, seeing that the language has so few words for these kinds of things. A caution though, not to bandy them around too quickly. >>I also tried to dissect out the negative associations inherent in >>words "weakness" and "dominate" by providing a (to me) judgment-free but >>much more expressive metaphor .... > >My use of the word "dominate" was probably inappropriate and/or >unfortunate, since it was generally understood to have much more >Neanderthal, nonconsensual connotations than I intended. I'm kinda glad to hear you say this, Tom. Makes me think that it's worth considering words as having a body or presence on each plane, rather as a human being does, so the physical plane is the sound or the print, then there's an emotional or affective level, a logical or conceptual level, and in some cases, higher. All this in an energy field of associations and resonances branching out from the central word. So when you deliver the word, you deliver the whole package with its connections, and those with the relevant antennae can pick it all up. Hmmmm. Points to a need for Mindfulness - something we can all do with more of. >I was referring more to, specifically in their relationships with each >other, how much more men take the initiative than do women and how natural >and preferable to both parties this generally is. The ideal relationship >is between equals, and the main reason I did not respond to your article >is that I had no basic disagreements with it and I thought of nothing I >could have added to it in your descriptions of how male and female >energies complement each other. Thankyou. That clears that one up. The ideal relationship - yes, and we can expand the "equals" idea a bit further: Not only equal in intrinsic value, which is what I think you mean, but it needs IMO to be equals in the level of participation and contribution, while acknowledging that the *kinds* of contribution may be very different, with both partners coming from their respective strengths. If, on the other hand, there is a severe mismatch or dysfunction, whether in man or woman, or if they are not actualising their potential for some reason, it's IMO a better use of the word "weakness" than as one of the inherent attributes of femininity. As for initiative, I think that in Western culture, it certainly used to be true that men took most of the initiative, but there has been such a huge historical shift that it now seems a poor generalisation to make. Most of the women I know exert initiative not only in the traditionally feminine ways, but do it darned well in ways that only men used to do. Frighteningly well, speaking from a poor little male heart for a moment! (Sob - it's such a hard life, surrounded by strong *and* beautiful women. Woops - might be getting a bit sexist there. We jokers (a New Zealand term) know you can get in the poo real fast, sometimes. Not always why, though .... ) HOWEVER, even under the "old" paradigm, there are subtleties to initiative, so that it doesn't just spring out of one partner and land on the other, but there can be a welling-up, as it were, where the ground and the impulse for an initiative can be provided by one person, and the other then puts form and expression to it and has the outward appearance of having originated the initiative. >>"So then, "liking to be dominated" might become "enjoying the >>magnetically receptive role", and liking to dominate could be transformed >>into "enjoying the radiant transmissive role", in a context of freedom, >>empowerment and mutual respect far beyond those implicit in old terms >>like domination." > >I never could have expressed it in this way, but this is closer to what I >meant by "dominate." 'Active" and "passive," as spirit is active and >matter is passive in their union with each other, would have been better >words for me to use. Message received. I see better where you're coming from, now. >You also mentioned Dion Fortune. I have read "Esoteric Philosophy of Love >and Marriage" several times. Great. There are a few things there I don't agree with but, on the whole, I think it has a lot to offer on the question of polarity and its partial subset, sexuality. Stuff that would probably help Theosophists (and others, of course) in integrating it into their spiritual life. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:27:04 -0500 From: MKusek@aol.com Subject: April Joy? Message-ID: <961214162703_436759947@emout11.mail.aol.com> >Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>In message <199612131012.FAA26055@envirolink.org>, John Straughn >>>JTarn@envirolink.org> writes >>>Ack. Really? You didn't post the April Joy thing? Who did? > >>April Joy. >> >>Alan [sigh] >Ack squared. That's impossible, she's dead! jk. I've never seen April Joy on >here before. She only pops in every once in a while? Mumble. I tell you. It's Alan's alter ego. Notice how he responds with words like "brilliant" to her post. S=o) TTT --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:55:09 -0500 From: MKusek@aol.com Subject: Tom Robertson? Message-ID: <961214165508_235432562@emout18.mail.aol.com> I also believe that Alan and Tom Robertson are one and the same! S=o) TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:40:59 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: TTT? Message-ID: <19961214224046.AAA24259@LOCALNAME> At 09:58 PM 12/14/96 +0000, MKusek@aol.com wrote: >I also believe that Alan and Tom Robertson are one and the same! S=o) >TTT > This theory actually makes some sense. I represent myself as being in the Theosophical Society, and being basically happy with it, and Alan has much criticism for the powers that be in the TS. What better way would there be for me to both complain about the TS and not face criticism within it? And what better way for Alan to safely express his true male chauvinism, his United States nationalism, in spite of how he _pretends_ to live in Great Britain, and many other obvious evils that could be repressed no longer, than by using a pseudonym, using brutally harsh criticism for the pseudonym as a blind? What about "MKusek" and "TTT?" I originally thought that "Art House" was the rather unusual name for an avowed female until I figured out that "Art House" must be some kind of organization, since Mark also claimed to be _from_ Art House. But why is TTT signing her name to MKusek's posts? What does "TTT" stand for, anyway? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:55:50 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: April Joy? Message-ID: <961214175549_975073189@emout09.mail.aol.com> Is she any relation to April Showers? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:58:32 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Tom Robertson? Message-ID: <961214175831_2085306797@emout11.mail.aol.com> Not unless Alan has completely lost himself in the British fog. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 14 18:14:20 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: United States thing Message-ID: <199612142314.SAA24278@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >>At 01:20 AM 12/14/96 +0000, Kym wrote: >>>Tom wrote: >>>Please keep in mind, with your obvious patriotic zeal, that there are >>>otherson this list who are not in or from America. Just a little >>>somethin' tothink about. . . >> >>I had no idea there _was_ any other country besides the United States. When >>did this happen and why was it allowed? > >Is this an attempt at humor? Is there really a 'real person' behind these >"Tom Robertson" posts? Or is this simply another bedlamite ranting, another >'tommy turd' I may step in lest I skimp on diligence? What do I do? What >approach do I take? The Theosophical thing to do would be to give him the >benefit of the doubt. . .but I'm not sure I'm a Theosophist. . .so that >isn't going to help me. Man, I hate these moral dilemmas. Should I look >upon him as friend rather than foe? Should I recognize him as a brother. . . > > >Whoa! Jump back there girl! Get a grip! You almost had me there, Tombo. >That was close. . . > > >Kym Oh, come now. Aren't we being a little harsh? :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 14 18:21:05 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Banana-Raspberry and Nuts Bread Message-ID: <199612142321.SAA24687@envirolink.org> A recipe where bananas and rasberries can work together in an environment of equality. *sigh* What a wonderful world we live in. :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:56:50 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Banana-Raspberry and Nuts Bread Message-ID: <19961214235638.AAA26687@LOCALNAME> At 11:31 PM 12/14/96 +0000, The Triaist wrote: >A recipe where bananas and rasberries can work together in an environment of >equality. *sigh* What a wonderful world we live in. > >:) It is an insult to raspberries everywhere. :( From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 02:10:11 +0100 From: "Martin Euser" Subject: Forwarded message for theos-l Message-ID: <199612150108.CAA23890@venus.euro.net> Hi, due to the fact that Konstantin cannot E-mail directly to theos-l, I'll forward his message. >From Konstantin Ziatzev : Hello! Art House wrote: > if known by rote alone. Gender identity does not exist above the lower > mental subplanes (rupa-manas). It is distinctly a phenomenon of personal > identity and has as the scope of its activity only the three lower > planes of your chart (really only #1, #2 and the lower half of #3). The > Ego in the causal body, (on the arupa-manasic subplanes) does not gender > identify. It is the resolution of all such conflicts and distinctions. Yes, and all conflicts between men and women should be treated as the conflicts between workers and capitalists, because in different lives we incarnate to different bodies. It seems to me that questions like this should not be interesting to theosophists, IMHO. With growth of this topic our maillist began to remind an old magazine for housewives :() Treating "brotherhood" as a "male" term, we refer it as "unity of forms", what can never exist. So IMHO those who see in "brotherhood" a sexual hue, don't understand a meaning of real brotherhood which on arupa levels exist, at all. They understand it as someone said: "All people are brothers, but i'm a cousin". :) m.k. ramadoss wrote: > I have been following with interest the discussion about who is a Friend. "No one is a friend for you and no one is an enemy, but everyone is your teacher" (Who said - i don't know) > they had cut out two large round holes on the front side so that the bare > breasts could show up. The tribal women (and men) thought it was beautiful. Some "couturier" in Paris also think so :) --- This is only tearline... * Origin: Ubice centrum et nullibi circumferential (2:5020/360.4) Konstantin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 02:15:26 +0100 From: "Martin Euser" Subject: Title of forwarded message Message-ID: <199612150113.CAA24720@venus.euro.net> Hi, I forgot to copy the title of Konstantin's message: Brotherhood of men, women & other people. Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:21:42 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" Message-ID: <9612150121.AA03650@toto.csustan.edu> TM >I have attempted to read the article a few times now, without >success. The writer constantly makes snide personal imprecations >against Johnson in lieu of argument, and as one would expect >from the title, he really does not care if the reader sees that >this is mostly intended as a personal attack. While more >restrained than some Theosophical polemics (e.g., Kingsland's >"Was She a Charlatan?") the article does not seem to have much >idea what tone is necessary for scholarly discussion and >objective weighing of evidence. This rabidity makes the article >virtually impenetrable for anyone whose concern is to discover >the truth of the issues rather than to choose sides in a >personal war. Were it boiled down to some one-fourth the size, >so as to focus on its actual issues and express them concisely, >then it might turn out to have something valuable to say; but >after reading a couple of thousand words which said nothing >more than "the Maharajah probably would not be riding a horse by >himself, and Johnson is a jerk for not mentioning this", I had >little interest in probing further. JHE There is certainly no denying the pejorative language in Daniel Caldwell's study beginning, as you say, with the title. I also agree that it is a major weakness and will discourage those who are sensitive to this language. Unfortunately, sarcastic and pejorative language seems to be present even in refereed articles these days. My present situation requires that I'm daily reading journal articles in rhetoric and literary criticism, and find that pejorative and sarcastic language (though more or less controlled) is far from missing in these genres (especially when the subject concerns any form of occultism). Perhaps you are used to reading in other fields where such narratives are more disciplined. But, based upon my own reading experience, I would agree that Caldwell's article may have in a few cases gone beyond the norms of literary criticism, but I would not agree that the points Caldwell raised ought to be disregarded because they were presented in a pejorative tone. Beyond the tone of the essay, I also see (in my reading of Caldwell's article) a systematic analysis of the arguments raised in K. Paul Johnson's book that required a very close reading of the text and considerable independent research on Caldwell's part. Further, I did not detect a pejorative tone in David Reigle's appendix, which I also found to be quite informative. As a whole, I think Caldwell's study further illuminates Johnson's book and creates food for further discussion. Are we reasonably to expect any more than this? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:23:02 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Eldon's example Message-ID: <9612150123.AA01439@toto.csustan.edu> JRC >HQ has for some time gotten away with an enormous number of >things that are, IMO, quite corrupt, because they had almost >complete control over the means of discussion among the >membership. On this list they do not, but the intensity of >dissent voiced here is not a negative quality of the list, but >rather a symptom of deep dissent within the Society that has no >other outlet - and any thought that anyone should restrain the >tone or content of their dissent on this list makes me very >uncomfortable - as its the only place where dissent can even >speak. And that is directly due to the actions of HQ. JHE If your view expresses anything near a consensus of opinion on theos-l, this board has the potential of becoming a significant balance to the Wheaton oligarchy. I hope it is. I would like to add that the censorship within the Adyar (Wheaton) TS goes further than controlling National elections and now Lodge assets. The Organization's control over the publications that you mentioned also has a lot to do with what we *think* we know about the history of the TS and the ideas it promulgated. I submit that we need to recognize the possibility that we have been lied to on every level, from history to organizational details to doctrine to past and present political decisions. I also submit that every lie has an effect on every other, building a web so complex that all becomes obscured in confusion. Therefore, I'm also in favor of the dissent, but lets focus these controversies to trying to figure out what is going on. Every person has a unique point of view and each of us holds a piece of the puzzle. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:18:46 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Tom Robertson? Message-ID: <199612150132.UAA20000@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: MKusek@aol.com > > I also believe that Alan and Tom Robertson are one and the same! S=o) > TTT If that's true, then Tom is Alan's evil twin. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 01:10:07 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Chuck? Message-ID: In message <961214175831_2085306797@emout11.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Not unless Alan has completely lost himself in the British fog. > >Chuck the Heretic No. I looked for me, and there I was! 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, 14 Dec 1996 19:12:48 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <199612150212.TAA00891@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >>(Kym) Is this an attempt at humor? >No, it was a _successful_ attempt, obviously. To have replied "No, there was no attempt involved, it was humor, and damn good humor at that" would have been cleaner, clearer, and stronger. >No. Official Theosophical doctrine says that personality is an illusion. >Especially mine. Congratulations on your mastery of illusion. >As hard as I tried, I did not understand this sentence. Are you calling me >a turd? Now there, you know it is not like me to call someone names. >First of all, you should thank me for being such a spiritual ally to you >that I have given you such a rare opportunity for growth in tolerance, >patience, and compassion. You've also provided me growth in other areas. >Could I ever make you laugh enough to look past my sexism? Unanswerable at this time. . . >You would probably rather be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, where >you OUGHT to be. A sexist, a "fruitist," and now a satirist! How do you juggle it all? >That was cruel to get my hopes up like that. But I'll keep trying. Will >you marry me? Well, what have we here? After giving your proposal some thought (knowing how you toy not with women's emotions) I realized the greatest favor I could do us both was to politely refuse. For the following would have occurred: You would have left me standing, broken-hearted and humiliated, at the altar, because that's the kind of guy you are - and then I, in turn, would have had to hunt you down and teach you the meaning of the phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," because that's the kind of woman I am. This way with the, again polite, non-acceptance of your proposal - You are happy, I am happy, and the Lords of Karma have just cranked up their stereo and are boogy-ing to "Jingle Bell Rock." See what a fine, fine thing I have done? And you think I'm malicious. . . I look forward to being one of your greatest spiritual allies. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:19:46 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: A Troll for Your Christmas Stocking Message-ID: <199612150218.VAA06183@newman.cris.com> THE DEFINITION OF A TROLL: v.,n [from the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", as style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly convening to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact, a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. Some people claim that the troll is properly a narrower category than flame-bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overly controversial. (Taken from The New Hacker Dictionary, Third Edition, compiled by Eric S. Raymond, published by MIT Press.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- If you are heavily into computers and the internet, this is a hilarious publication that comes highly recommended by my husband. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:38:00 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: On being harsh Message-ID: <199612150238.TAA01330@snowden.micron.net> John the Triaist wrote: >>(Kym wrote) Whoa! Jump back there girl! Get a grip! You almost had me there, >>Tombo. That was close. . . >Oh, come now. Aren't we being a little harsh? :) Well, now just for that, John the Triaist! ---- remember this? >:) ...My rook is in position, Kym. The clock is ticking.:) >(Wow, I had to crack my knuckles for that one.) N-KB3 (Knight moves to King Bishop three). The clock is ticking! Now that's harsh! :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 02:52:41 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <19961215025230.AAA12269@LOCALNAME> At 02:13 AM 12/15/96 +0000, Kym wrote: >Tom wrote: > >>>(Kym) Is this an attempt at humor? > >>No, it was a _successful_ attempt, obviously. > >To have replied "No, there was no attempt involved, it was humor, and damn >good humor at that" would have been cleaner, clearer, and stronger. Yes, but I am not the type to presume to congratulate myself like that. I equate self-deprecation, regardless of how phony and false it is, with humility. >>First of all, you should thank me for being such a spiritual ally to you >>that I have given you such a rare opportunity for growth in tolerance, >>patience, and compassion. >You've also provided me growth in other areas. You're welcome. >>You would probably rather be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, where >>you OUGHT to be. >A sexist, a "fruitist," and now a satirist! How do you juggle it all? You bring out the best in me. >>That was cruel to get my hopes up like that. But I'll keep trying. Will >>you marry me? >Well, what have we here? After giving your proposal some thought (knowing >how you toy not with women's emotions) I realized the greatest favor I could >do us both was to politely refuse. For the following would have occurred: >You would have left me standing, broken-hearted and humiliated, at the >altar, All of this implication of uncertainty, pointing out what an agonizingly difficult decision it was and how deeply hurt you always are at my absence sounds awfully tentative, half-hearted, and indecisive. Like the _typical_ woman, are you leading me on? >And you think I'm malicious. . . Sadistic might be a better word. >I look forward to being one of your greatest spiritual allies. Me, too. Sadists and I get along well. Even at my most sexist, I only meant that _most_ men, not all of them, naturally dominate women. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 03:18:10 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: TS Corruption Message-ID: <19961215031807.AAA21648@LOCALNAME> At 01:27 AM 12/15/96 +0000, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: >JRC >>HQ has for some time gotten away with an enormous number of >>things that are, IMO, quite corrupt, because they had almost >>complete control over the means of discussion among the >>membership. On this list they do not, but the intensity of >>dissent voiced here is not a negative quality of the list, but >>rather a symptom of deep dissent within the Society that has no >>other outlet - and any thought that anyone should restrain the >>tone or content of their dissent on this list makes me very >>uncomfortable - as its the only place where dissent can even >>speak. And that is directly due to the actions of HQ. >JHE >If your view expresses anything near a consensus of opinion on >theos-l, this board has the potential of becoming a significant >balance to the Wheaton oligarchy. I hope it is. > >I would like to add that the censorship within the Adyar >(Wheaton) TS goes further than controlling National elections and >now Lodge assets. The Organization's control over the >publications that you mentioned also has a lot to do with what we >*think* we know about the history of the TS and the ideas it >promulgated. I have no information on which to base a definite opinion about any specifics of the "Wheaton oligarchy" except that I personally think very highly of one of the ex-national officers who is a member of my lodge, but I do not see any necessary problem in their publishing some books and not others. They have to draw the line somewhere. Should they publish "Mein Kampf?" Or does this imply a misunderstanding of the degree to which they censor material which is clearly relevant to Theosophy? Krishnamurti has been a controversial subject within the TS, but we have his books in our library and we discuss his ideas at our meetings. From what I have seen, they should be _more_ selective about their material, not less. I cannot imagine what motive anyone in the TS would have for wanting to use their power to suppress alternative opinions, except that the material is considered harmful to Theosophy. Is it a personal battle? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:19:31 -0500 From: MKusek@aol.com Subject: TTT? Message-ID: <961214221930_1007234719@emout05.mail.aol.com> Alan as Tom: >And what better way for Alan to safely express his true male chauvinism, his >United States nationalism, in spite of how he _pretends_ to live in Great >Britain, and many other obvious evils that could be repressed no longer, >than by using a pseudonym, using brutally harsh criticism for the pseudonym >as a blind? Okay, Alan as Tom. Next topic should be, "Whips, Leather, and Sado-Masochism, how much does it hurt?" You can consult with Chuckie on that. Alan as Tom: >But why is TTT signing her name to MKusek's posts? I like dominating everybody's email. Alan as Tom: >What does "TTT" stand for, anyway? Totally Tasteless Tart TTT S=oD From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:22:32 -0500 From: MKusek@aol.com Subject: Banana-Raspberry and Nuts Bread Message-ID: <961214222231_67710763@emout19.mail.aol.com> >At 11:31 PM 12/14/96 +0000, The Triaist wrote: >>A recipe where bananas and rasberries can work together in an environment of >>equality. *sigh* What a wonderful world we live in. >> >>:) Alan as Tom: >It is an insult to raspberries everywhere. :( You nuts hurt my teeth! S=o) TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 03:33:32 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Forwarded message for theos-l Message-ID: <01BBEA38.C3840D20@rvik-ppp-216.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBEA38.C38BAE40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit m.k. ramadoss wrote: > "No one is a friend for you and no one is an enemy, but everyone is your teacher" (Who said - i don't know) It's from Light on Path, part 2, explaning vers no. 10. (Sorry, I don't have the english version). Kind love, EINAR ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBEA38.C38BAE40 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IigDAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADGy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAIwAAAFJFOiBGb3J3YXJkZWQgbWVzc2FnZSBm b3IgdGhlb3MtbCAA9wsBBYADAA4AAADMBwwADwADACEAIAAAADIBASCAAwAOAAAAzAcMAA8AAwAd AAgAAAAWAQEJgAEAIQAAADJGRTcwNEZFRkY1NUQwMTFBMTBENDQ0NTUzNTQwMDAwAPcGAQOQBgAc AwAAEgAAAAsAIwAAAAAAAwAmAAAAAAALACkAAAAAAAMANgAAAAAAQAA5AKDd3b446rsBHgBwAAEA AAAjAAAAUkU6IEZvcndhcmRlZCBtZXNzYWdlIGZvciB0aGVvcy1sIAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbvq OL7d/gTnMFX/EdChDURFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAB8MAQAAABIAAABhbm5h c2JAaXNtZW5udC5pcwAAAAMABhDn0aVDAwAHEM4AAAAeAAgQAQAAAGUAAABNS1JBTUFET1NTPFJB TUFET1NTQEVERU5DT01XUk9URToiTk9PTkVJU0FGUklFTkRGT1JZT1VBTkROT09ORUlTQU5FTkVN WSxCVVRFVkVSWU9ORUlTWU9VUlRFQUNIRVIiKFdIAAAAAAIBCRABAAAAlwEAAJMBAACDAgAATFpG dWRs8Nb/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMCgzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKD M7cC5AcTAoM0EswUxX0KgD8IzwnZAoAKgQ2xC2BuZ/AxMDM5CvsUUQvyE1AabxPQYwVACotsaTMO NhrRGi8bMiBtLmuQLiByYQDAZG8EEVo8HmZACYAJ8C4FoG3oPiB3GwI6CoUKhSAQICAiTm8gAiBl IDEEACBhIANQCJBuZLsiYAWxeQhgIkAisW4hyAcDoAnwE+B5LCBidfkFQGV2BJAjICHzCoUjIRcF wBPQANBoBJAiICi0V2ghwHMLcCLALSIQUiAeoG4nBUBrI6B3DikgnBvvFUQyNCBJDHQnBCADUiBM aWcGaAVAAiAgUGF0aJckwAqxBUAyJMBleAtR+wMAGVAgJTEEICOgHkAZcHMeQAqFKFMFsCVQJMBJ vyf1EYAlMCaAJtAkYWccQJRzaC3TaQIgKS4gnF5LC4AiwBcwJTAsIJxFsElOQVIKhRbBADUgAAMA EBAAAAAAAwAREAAAAABAAAcwIJi5ITjquwFAAAgwIJi5ITjquwEeAD0AAQAAAAUAAABSRTogAAAA AF3K ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBEA38.C38BAE40-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:04:52 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Eldon's example Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > The Organization's control over the > publications that you mentioned also has a lot to do with what we > *think* we know about the history of the TS and the ideas it > promulgated. I submit that we need to recognize the possibility > that we have been lied to on every level, from history to > organizational details to doctrine to past and present political > decisions. I also submit that every lie has an effect on every > other, building a web so complex that all becomes obscured in > confusion. Well ... you've got me *very* intrigued. > Therefore, I'm also in favor of the dissent, but lets focus these > controversies to trying to figure out what is going on. Every > person has a unique point of view and each of us holds a piece of > the puzzle. I'd be most interested in a discussion if you'd care to offer a couple of topics ... I'm not versed enough in TS history to start a discussion, but could you, for instance, mention some aspect of doctrine into which distortion was introduced ... and perhaps even trace the development of the distortion over time? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:07:31 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Tom Robertson? Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > > I also believe that Alan and Tom Robertson are one and the same! S=o) > > TTT > > If that's true, then Tom is Alan's evil twin. > -Ann E. Bermingham Unless, of course, they are only "statistically" the same, which would not mean they were the same at the individual level. Tee Hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:09:43 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > At 01:27 AM 12/15/96 +0000, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > censor material which is clearly relevant to Theosophy? Krishnamurti has > been a controversial subject within the TS, but we have his books in our > library and we discuss his ideas at our meetings. From what I have seen, Do you know we even have one person on the Board of Directors who has *the* unique position of suing Krishnamurti (yes K was sued by this person and few others) ? Of course very few people know about it, and it is even possible you may have met this person. MKR > > > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:12:32 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > At 01:27 AM 12/15/96 +0000, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > >JRC > censor material which is clearly relevant to Theosophy? Krishnamurti has > been a controversial subject within the TS, but we have his books in our > library and we discuss his ideas at our meetings. From what I have seen, He has been controversial for some members. For a much larger number, his books, tapes and videos have affected them in a very positive way. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:17:47 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Masters and the Path Message-ID: I just found out that the book is out of print. Does it indicate any trend in the direction of the philosophy that Adyar want to steer TS into? Just a topic to speculate. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:27:16 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: > > At 02:13 AM 12/15/96 +0000, Kym wrote: > >Tom wrote: > > > >>>(Kym) Is this an attempt at humor? > > > >>No, it was a _successful_ attempt, obviously. > > > >To have replied "No, there was no attempt involved, it was humor, and damn > >good humor at that" would have been cleaner, clearer, and stronger. > > Yes, but I am not the type to presume to congratulate myself like that. I > equate self-deprecation, regardless of how phony and false it is, with humility. > > > >>First of all, you should thank me for being such a spiritual ally to you > >>that I have given you such a rare opportunity for growth in tolerance, > >>patience, and compassion. > > >You've also provided me growth in other areas. > > You're welcome. > > > >>You would probably rather be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, where > >>you OUGHT to be. > > >A sexist, a "fruitist," and now a satirist! How do you juggle it all? > > You bring out the best in me. > > > >>That was cruel to get my hopes up like that. But I'll keep trying. Will > >>you marry me? > > >Well, what have we here? After giving your proposal some thought (knowing > >how you toy not with women's emotions) I realized the greatest favor I could > >do us both was to politely refuse. For the following would have occurred: > >You would have left me standing, broken-hearted and humiliated, at the > >altar, > > All of this implication of uncertainty, pointing out what an agonizingly > difficult decision it was and how deeply hurt you always are at my absence > sounds awfully tentative, half-hearted, and indecisive. Like the _typical_ > woman, are you leading me on? > > > >And you think I'm malicious. . . > > Sadistic might be a better word. > > > >I look forward to being one of your greatest spiritual allies. > > Me, too. Sadists and I get along well. Even at my most sexist, I only > meant that _most_ men, not all of them, naturally dominate women. > > Not true...as Uncle Chuckie can verify, most men in the scene at SUBMISSIVE to women..... in the boardroom, men may be dominate over women...but that's due in large part to the restrictions of the "good old boys network"....a group of grumpy old men who can only perpetuate their power base by stepping on those that they perceive of as threats. -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:29:40 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Theosophist Friends Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > Essentially, it's about a large organization, who had control over > their communications for a long time and became very upset that individuals > in the organization could establish a mailing list and discuss issues > that they felt shouldn't be aired. > > Not really being thoroughly knowledgeable on the subject, I'd be afraid to > tackle > commentary. Perhaps KPJohnson would like to comment. Internet is an unusually new medium and due to its nature, most organizations will find it difficult to come to deal with it. So I am not surprised by the difficulty Bahai leadership have with it. TSA leadership also have a problem with it. How many of the elected officials of TSA present or past have we seen on theos-l? None. The question is why? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:30:31 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Forwarded message for theos-l Message-ID: -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 00:33:48 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > I have no information on which to base a definite opinion about any > specifics of the "Wheaton oligarchy" except that I personally think very > highly of one of the ex-national officers who is a member of my lodge, but I > do not see any necessary problem in their publishing some books and not > others. They have to draw the line somewhere. Should they publish "Mein > Kampf?" Or does this imply a misunderstanding of the degree to which they > censor material which is clearly relevant to Theosophy? Krishnamurti has > been a controversial subject within the TS, but we have his books in our > library and we discuss his ideas at our meetings. From what I have seen, > they should be _more_ selective about their material, not less. I cannot > imagine what motive anyone in the TS would have for wanting to use their > power to suppress alternative opinions, except that the material is > considered harmful to Theosophy. Is it a personal battle? > In the general context of the above, I would like to point out that we have not seen any present or past elected officials on theos-l. Nor have we seen the mention of theos-xxx in Quest Magazine. This makes one wonder. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 96 13:33:26 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" Message-ID: <199612142134.NAA18340@scv2.apple.com> >Comment: The use of quote marks in reference to KPJ's putative reply, by >all publishing conventions known to me, suggests that the issue is >prejudged, and negatively so. Please explain this apparent bias in the >light of your lengthy remarks suggesting the value of objective >evaluation of both data and opinions. I have attempted to read the article a few times now, without success. The writer constantly makes snide personal imprecations against Johnson in lieu of argument, and as one would expect from the title, he really does not care if the reader sees that this is mostly intended as a personal attack. While more restrained than some Theosophical polemics (e.g., Kingsland's "Was She a Charlatan?") the article does not seem to have much idea what tone is necessary for scholarly discussion and objective weighing of evidence. This rabidity makes the article virtually impenetrable for anyone whose concern is to discover the truth of the issues rather than to choose sides in a personal war. Were it boiled down to some one-fourth the size, so as to focus on its actual issues and express them concisely, then it might turn out to have something valuable to say; but after reading a couple of thousand words which said nothing more than "the Maharajah probably would not be riding a horse by himself, and Johnson is a jerk for not mentioning this", I had little interest in probing further. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 22:36:54 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Mr. Tim Maroney's Remarks on Daniel Caldwell's "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" Message-ID: <199612150536.WAA03973@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Mr. Tim Maroney's Remarks on Daniel Caldwell's "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" Mr. Maroney writes on Theos-Roots: >I have attempted to read the article a few times now, without success. >The writer constantly makes snide personal imprecations against Johnson >in lieu of argument, and as one would expect from the title, he really >does not care if the reader sees that this is mostly intended as a >personal attack. While more restrained than some Theosophical polemics >(e.g., Kingsland's "Was She a Charlatan?") the article does not seem to >have much idea what tone is necessary for scholarly discussion and >objective weighing of evidence. This rabidity makes the article virtually >impenetrable for anyone whose concern is to discover the truth of the >issues rather than to choose sides in a personal war. Were it boiled down >to some one-fourth the size, so as to focus on its actual issues and >express them concisely, then it might turn out to have something valuable >to say; but after reading a couple of thousand words which said nothing >more than "the Maharajah probably would not be riding a horse by himself, >and Johnson is a jerk for not mentioning this", I had little interest in >probing further. Daniel Caldwell replies: Mr. Maroney is entitled to his opinion of my HOUSE OF CARDS. But I find it interesting to compare his estimation of my paper with letters I have received in the last 2 or 3 weeks from (for example) 8 or 9 individuals who all have PhDs. Most of these individuals are not in any way proponents of Theosophy and yet they have complimented me for writing my paper. One said that he was impressed with my "analysis" of Johnson's thesis. Another PhD said he read the entire paper with great interest. Etc. Etc. On Dec. 4, one professor e-mailed me the following: "Your House of Cards sticks right to the point and does not indulge in any sidebar personal asides. For that reason, it is valuable and insightful." Apparently, some scholars do not agree with Mr. Maroney's assessment of my paper. I am somewhat surprised that Mr. Maroney says he could not read the entire HOUSE OF CARDS. The paper is only 41 pages long!! Even some reviewers have written that Johnson's three books were not that easy to read. Johnson sometimes goes into what may seem like needless side issues or spends pages on details not really that relevant to his main themes. Some people may find such things distracting, boring, etc. I don't and I believe such criticisms are really of minor importance since they relate to matters of "form" and not of substance. No doubt, my paper could have been improved and the arguments might have been more concisely stated. Criticize the "outer form" of my paper all you want. Nevertheless, I believe that I deal with a number of CRUCIAL issues of SUBSTANCE and provide ample evidence as well as detailed reasoning for rejecting many of Johnson's statements. I think I have partially succeeded in what I set out to do from the number of positive responses I have already received. But each reader of my paper will have to make up his or her mind on all of this. 1/3 to 1/2 of my paper is detailed quotations from primary sources (, e.g., Colonel Olcott's first hand accounts of meeting the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi) and certain secondary sources. I would have thought that Mr. Maroney would have found this quoted material somewhat understandable, relevant and interesting. *Unfortunately, Mr. Maroney does NOT deal with any of my substantive criticisms.* He is apparently not interested in addressing directly the criticisms and issues I have raised. But if he changes his mind and wants to write something on THE ISSUES covered in my paper, I will be more than happy to post his comments on the World Wide Web with my HOUSE OF CARDS. Yes, I have been plain spoken in my criticisms of Johnson's thesis and research BUT I have also tried to show the reader my reasoning, etc. for making such frank assessments of Johnson's research. I am glad that Mr. Maroney mentions William Kingsland's WAS SHE [BLAVATSKY] A CHARLATAN? This 60 page analysis of the Hodgson Report points out many of the inconsistencies and misstatements, etc in Richard Hodgson's attack on Madame Blavatsky. Maroney characterizes Kingsland's analysis as "Theosophical polemics" but he fails to mention any of the excellent points Kingsland makes about Hodgson's Report. Anyone who is interested in reading Kingsland's analysis can e-mail me for more details on how to obtain his paper. In summary, I did not write my analysis of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M and KH for the casual reader. I did not write my paper just for Phds either. I wrote the paper for thoughtful people who found Johnson's thesis possibly interesting and even thought provoking but who would also like MORE facts and input before accepting his conjectures for historical reality. I wonder what Mr. Maroney thinks of Dr. John Algeo's THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY review of Johnson's THE MASTER REVEALED? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 07:04:06 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <19961215070404.AAA17366@LOCALNAME> At 06:16 AM 12/15/96 +0000, "m.k. ramadoss" wrote: > Do you know we even have one person on the Board of Directors who has >*the* unique position of suing Krishnamurti (yes K was sued by this >person and few others) ? Of course very few people know about it, and it >is even possible you may have met this person. I recall reading that K was not allowed on the property at Adyar, but a lawsuit is news to me. For what did they sue him? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 07:04:09 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <19961215070404.AAB17366@LOCALNAME> At 06:40 AM 12/15/96 +0000, "m.k. ramadoss" wrote: > In the general context of the above, I would like to point out that we >have not seen any present or past elected officials on theos-l. Nor have >we seen the mention of theos-xxx in Quest Magazine. This makes one >wonder. I wonder what would be wondered about. Without some definition suspicion of certain motives, nothing would be mentioned about anything making anyone wonder. What motives are TS leaders suspected of? How long has this list been in existence? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 07:04:12 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <19961215070404.AAC17366@LOCALNAME> At 06:28 AM 12/15/96 +0000, cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) wrote: >...as Uncle Chuckie can verify, most men in the scene at SUBMISSIVE >to women..... I have heard just the opposite, that dominant women are very hard for the submissive men to find, and that the most common arrangement is a dominant man with a submissive woman. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 02:59:53 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Fog? Message-ID: <961215025952_403282811@emout18.mail.aol.com> Good, I didn't think you were Tom. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:48:17 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Sexism etc Message-ID: <19961215134815.AAA6297@LOCALNAME> At 07:51 PM 12/14/96 +0000, Murray Stentiford wrote: >I wondered why you said that emotion is a source of >information (if I remember correctly). That seemed a particularly >mentally-oriented way to define it, and rather off to one side. The only >information I can see being transmitted is the fact that the person is >feeling the emotion, plus the impact of the energy. Can you elaborate? Thought and emotion give different information. Often, the intellect cannot determine why certain desires exist. It might be analogous to an employer and an employee where the employee has access to different information than the employer has, but is subject to the employer's decisions. When they give conflicting information, it is generally, if not always, better to act on thought rather than on emotion, which may be lumping thought and intuition together, since I include common sense and what seems reasonable as functions of intuition. >I do not think it's correct to exclude the field of emotion from the state >of compassion because, in a whole person (meaning all levels functioning, >with minimal fragmentation between and within them), different sorts of >feelings would quite naturally arise from the experience, eg various shades >of love, which could be powerful motivators to action, or anger, to remove >an injustice. Compassion is primarily an attitude, not a feeling, although feelings may result from it, as they do from all attitudes. I am not clear about whether attitudes are functions of the intuition or of the spirit. But I am clear that they should never be ruled by emotion. >Most of the women I know exert initiative not only in the traditionally >feminine ways, but do it darned well in ways that only men used to do. >Frighteningly well, speaking from a poor little male heart for a moment! >(Sob - it's such a hard life, surrounded by strong *and* beautiful women. >Woops - might be getting a bit sexist there. We jokers (a New Zealand term) >know you can get in the poo real fast, sometimes. Not always why, though .... ) I find strong women attractive, also. I wouldn't be afraid of being called sexist, though. Depending on what it means, it is a virtue. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:48:28 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Questions on Karma Message-ID: <19961215134826.AAA6342@LOCALNAME> 1) If karma means that justice is inevitable, does that mean that it is never good to act against injustice? Doesn't not acting against injustice sanction it, and therefore encourage it, and therefore deserve it, so that, to the one who did not act against it, it is no longer injustice? 2) If karma means that we can never hope to get any more or less than we have paid for, is there any ultimate gain or loss in anything? Does it then even matter what we do? 3) Is there good and bad karma, or just karma? The best answer I have to 1) is that I find it intuitively distasteful to passively accept injustice, in spite of it being the apparently logical conclusion to do so. Similarly, with 2), striving to grow intuitively seems worth the effort, in spite of the intellectual conclusion that the reward is only equal to the effort. With 3), it depends on whose perspective is being referred to. Since karma can be pleasant or painful, believing in it has motivational power. But from an acentric point of view, it has no value. Whether it is good or bad depends on its relationship to its object. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:48:31 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <19961215134826.AAB6342@LOCALNAME> At 12:07 AM 12/14/96 +0000, JRC wrote: >On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > >> The good Lucifer know's I've been trying to stay out of this mess, but >> reading the header on this exchange I can't help wonder how many of us who >> have been on the list for a while aren't starting to wonder what we would be >> reading if a certain princely friend of mine were still around. >> Hoo Hah! Would the fireworks be going off! >> >> (Remember the fruitcake flap?) >> >> Just try to keep it civil and not threaten physical violence. >> >> Chuck the Heretic >> >It *would* be cool if Alexis was still around. He's as far on the left as >the "dominator" is on the right. And he wouldn't have gotten bored as >quickly as most of the rest of us have. (I mean, geez, if someone's gonna >throw down an intellectual gauntlet so we can have a little fun, they >ought to at least have some sort of weaponry to make it an interesting >game - the Rush Limbaugh subplane of the astral plane gets kinda dull >pretty quickly). > >Say Chuck, have you spoken with Alexis lately? Just how the devil *is* he >doing anyway? I half expected to see him fomenting revolution outside the >Republican National Convention this summer. -JRC I have already tangled with Alexis in a newsgroup, and for much more innocuous statements than I have made on this list, which he did not begin to understand, he was far more insulting to me than anyone has been here, calling me, among many other gems, "a blithering idiot." When I respond to personal attacks, it is based on the optimism that my response has a reasonable chance of playing a positive role in cleaning up the mess. But with Alexis, I am already mostly convinced that he is beyond my power to do much about. It does not surprise me to learn that he has been involved on this list before. I can still see his spirit around. It also does not surprise me to hear that his politics is of the far left. Those who believe in extreme egalitarianism are notorious for how they regard those who dare to make comparisons as inferior. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 07:57:19 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961215135719.006c41c8@mail.eden.com> At 02:06 AM 12/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 06:16 AM 12/15/96 +0000, "m.k. ramadoss" wrote: > >> Do you know we even have one person on the Board of Directors who has >>*the* unique position of suing Krishnamurti (yes K was sued by this >>person and few others) ? Of course very few people know about it, and it >>is even possible you may have met this person. > >I recall reading that K was not allowed on the property at Adyar, but a >lawsuit is news to me. For what did they sue him? > There was a lawsuit in which the KFA Trustees and California Attorney General as plaintiffs sued the previous Krishnamurti Trusts and the Trustees. The Trusts and Trustees in turn counter sued. Later on there was a law suit by the Trustees against K and some others for some statement he made about the Trustees. The law suits went on for eighteen years making some lawyers very rich. The money donated for K's work ended up with lining the pocket of lawyers. There was a time that K himself was not allowed to use the property in Ojai which was set up for his work. BTW, I believe K did not go into the TS property at Adyar out of his own choice and it was not a question of his not being allowed in. He was always highly respected and regarded by Theosophists of every shade in India -- which is so even to this day. As an additional info, one of those sued by in the suit by CA Attorney General and other plaintiffs is now sitting on the Theosophical Investment Trust. What an irony? Truth is stranger than fiction. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 08:00:28 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961215140028.006b1588@mail.eden.com> At 02:07 AM 12/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 06:40 AM 12/15/96 +0000, "m.k. ramadoss" wrote: > >> In the general context of the above, I would like to point out that we >>have not seen any present or past elected officials on theos-l. Nor have >>we seen the mention of theos-xxx in Quest Magazine. This makes one >>wonder. > >I wonder what would be wondered about. Without some definition suspicion of >certain motives, nothing would be mentioned about anything making anyone >wonder. What motives are TS leaders suspected of? > >How long has this list been in existence? I believe this list has been in existence for three years. I subscribed to it last year and am enjoyed every bit of it. It also has provided me information that is unavailable from any source. I have also run into a number of very interested t/Theosophists and I am sure there are others on this list who feel the same way. Glad that you are here. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 08:09:22 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: fruitism Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961215140922.006d374c@mail.eden.com> At 08:57 AM 12/15/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:07 AM 12/14/96 +0000, JRC wrote: > >>On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: >> >>> The good Lucifer know's I've been trying to stay out of this mess, but >>> reading the header on this exchange I can't help wonder how many of us who >>> have been on the list for a while aren't starting to wonder what we would be >>> reading if a certain princely friend of mine were still around. >>> Hoo Hah! Would the fireworks be going off! >>> >>> (Remember the fruitcake flap?) >>> >>> Just try to keep it civil and not threaten physical violence. >>> >>> Chuck the Heretic >>> >>It *would* be cool if Alexis was still around. He's as far on the left as >>the "dominator" is on the right. And he wouldn't have gotten bored as >>quickly as most of the rest of us have. (I mean, geez, if someone's gonna >>throw down an intellectual gauntlet so we can have a little fun, they >>ought to at least have some sort of weaponry to make it an interesting >>game - the Rush Limbaugh subplane of the astral plane gets kinda dull >>pretty quickly). >> >>Say Chuck, have you spoken with Alexis lately? Just how the devil *is* he >>doing anyway? I half expected to see him fomenting revolution outside the >>Republican National Convention this summer. > -JRC > >I have already tangled with Alexis in a newsgroup, and for much more >innocuous statements than I have made on this list, which he did not begin >to understand, he was far more insulting to me than anyone has been here, >calling me, among many other gems, "a blithering idiot." > You will find anyone insulting anyone here to be very very rare and even if it happens it may be most of the times an oversight rather than intentional. Already those who are exposed to Theosophy in the world is miniscule and it does no good to run off even the handful who have taken the trouble to subscribe to this list. So every one with every shade of opinion is welcome and I will be the last one to do anything to insult or run of any one. Usually if any one is run off, it is out of their own volition over a period of time. Patience seems to work well. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 06:18:31 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Comments on Murray to Tom Message-ID: <32B40890.2944@withoutwalls.com> Boy, with the latest posts from JRC and JHE buzzing in my head, I feel on less than solid ground writing my response! We could all be such BIG FAT DUPES! I guess it's time to redouble my efforts and do comparative studies at their sources, eh? Where is that Joesph Campbell guy when you need him? Anyway here goes: ;-)> Murray wrote to Tom, >I do not think it's correct to exclude the field of emotion from the state >of compassion because, in a whole person (meaning all levels functioning, >with minimal fragmentation between and within them), different sorts of >feelings would quite naturally arise from the experience, eg various shades >of love, which could be powerful motivators to action, or anger, to remove >an injustice. >On the other hand, I wouldn't just lump emotion and intuition together, >either. I'm familiar with the Theosophical idea that intuition is a function >of Buddhi and emotion of the Astral level but, as the years have gone by, >I've come to see these terms and this classification as rather inadequate - >inevitably, of course, seeing that the language has so few words for these >kinds of things. A caution though, not to bandy them around too quickly. I couldn't agree more. When I run a fine tooth comb through some of the more recondite references I have on occult psychology, I find an important teaching that supports a bid to relate intuition (buddhi) and emotion (kama). I will paraphrase for the moment, but am happy to quote chapter and verse if called upon. I also invite others to state their point of view on this. I think "kama" has received a popular stigma in religious and occult circles as being (potentially) very nasty business. There are numerous schools of thought that preach everything from riotous license, to domination, to putting it in a deadly strangle hold in order to snuff out it's pesky vibes. While there is some valid argument and support for all of these views, they often overlook an important alternative that personally feels more comfortable. The doctrine of "manas" presumes an internal psychological gap between the personal "lower" (rupa-manas) and the impersonal "higher" (arupa-manas) that we, in the course of our evolution, are intended to bridge (building the antahkarana). Most of our ordinary everyday experiences occur in it's lower reaches, heavily soaked in "kamic" colourations. At times we can rise higher and "dry out" so to speak, as we exercise calm abstract reasoning. Inevitably, however, the force of our incarnation draws us back into the living stream of emotions. This is most obvious when we are very present physically and especially so when we are engaged in person-to-person relationships in the "outside world". However, sometimes for brief, still moments or as the fruit of meditation or aspirational practice, we breakthrough. We bridge the interior gap of the mind and with an unselfish open heart rise even higher to consciously experience that wonderful, transpersonal comingling of intuitive UNITY with Reason's clear light. We see. We know. We are. We belong. We become. Because we hold a focus as an embodied personality, we inevitably descend. This descent of our identity with buddhi, first impresses itself on our causal individuality, then shines through illumining our lower mind and reflecting into the three higher subplanes of our astral body. As we eventually settle into our normal kama-manas ego, IT is also PERSONALIZED with us. (There is theosophical teaching on occult correspondences between the first three subplanes of our emotional body and the higher manasic, buddhic and atmic planes; or so the story goes.) The point I'm trying to make is that as this descent from impersonal buddhi-manas happens (and you can test it in yourself), the intuitive experience gets transferred into our (mental and) emotional vehicles as very personal (thoughts and) "feelings" corresponding to it. Love feelings, humanitarian feelings, goodwill feelings, the feeling of the Presence of God in and with us, etc. We accept them as our own, and as we are able to respond, these sympathetic vibrations establish in us a deep personal motivation to do kindly good. Atmic will in kama (via buddhi-manas) becomes motive action. (e-motiv-ation) Sometimes, it seems to appear in us out of nowhere, descending like a warm ray of conscious sun light into our minds and hearts. Unwarranted and unrequested, God simply dawns on us from within. At other times it speaks to us in the guise of a loved one or a brother or sister, and all we see is a bright smile on their lips and a certain look in their eye. Hopefully, if acknowledged, we are moved to "right understanding" and "right action" It helps us to build our personal character and better ensoul it. Healthy heart, balanced mind, loving race. It has even been said in theosophical literature that because of the occult correspondences of these planes and subplanes, a PERSON living predominantly centered in the atma-kamic or buddhi-kamic levels of their emotional body, can actually be living a better quality of life than another who might be habitually centered in the lower subplanes of rupa-manas. Food for thought. ______________ Murray also wrote: >I'm kinda glad to hear you say this, Tom. Makes me think that it's worth >considering words as having a body or presence on each plane, rather as a >human being does, so the physical plane is the sound or the print, then >there's an emotional or affective level, a logical or conceptual level, and >in some cases, higher. All this in an energy field of associations and >resonances branching out from the central word. So when you deliver the >word, you deliver the whole package with its connections, and those with the >relevant antennae can pick it all up. Hmmmm. Points to a need for >Mindfulness - something we can all do with more of. I believe there is deep mystery in what you've said. Think of words like "love" or even "I" for that matter, and how these words change and deepen with experience, even though they are signified with just a few simple glyphs. They take on the depths of worlds. It's quite amazing, really! Think of long aeons of experience and what might result in our understanding and use of such words. Think of the hidden potential in the silence that proceeds and follows them! This was exactly the point I was trying to make a few posts ago regarding ritual art-making. "If you can go there, you can create from there". This is the whole science of mantra, yantra and the power of the spoken and written word. Monks vow silence to learn about this. All art aspires to it. In the fullness of time it is our destiny to become that creative word; or so the story goes. In the meantime the buddha taught "right speech." AUM TAT SAT AUM _______________ Tom & Murray wrote:: >>You also mentioned Dion Fortune. I have read "Esoteric Philosophy of Love >>and Marriage" several times. >Great. There are a few things there I don't agree with but, on the whole, I >think it has a lot to offer on the question of polarity and its partial >subset, sexuality. Stuff that would probably help Theosophists (and others, >of course) in integrating it into their spiritual life. I loved it too and got a lot out of reading it. It was simple to understand and practical. If I might ask, what disagreed with you? _______________ Lastly, about Art House, I apologize for the confusion. We are in the process of moving from one ISP to another. We've finally gotten our own web site, so we'll shortly be settled down and living our netlife from: http://www.withoutwalls.com Both TTT and myself will have our email come and go from there. But for the next few days at least, we'll be hopping around between old ISP addresses and my AOL account until everything is set up. Please bear with us. Hopefully, it will all stop in a week or so. Meanwhile, I've moved my exhibit "Art, Wisdom Tradition & Imagination" to our new address. Anyone who would like to come and see it who hasn't had a chance yet is welcome. Comments as always are appreciated. best to you all, and remember, *** "April Joy Lives!" *** Mark (formerly of ArtHouse, now of WithoutWalls) ________________ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:56:26 -0500 From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Angels and Ufos are epi-phenomenon of earthquakes and the brain Message-ID: <199612151056_MC1-D37-5705@compuserve.com> A special on the ARTS & ENTERTAINEMENT cable channel called "Where are all the UFO's" suggested at the end that there is new research which shows that 1. when rock breaks energy is released 2 these energy activates centers in the fore brain associated with the phenomenon of "PRESENCE" 3. experiments with inducing the patterns of energy released into the brain of an experimental subject revealed the subject felt that he was in the presence of strange indefinable beings Thus angels, demons, Masters, succubi, aliens, and a host of such pheneomenon have yet another materialistic explanation. I think we should allow the materialistic scientists their due in the sense of coming up with a new one that is a real s -t - r - e - t - c - h of credulity. Yet I do think that if subatomic physics can be brought in to explain universal oneness, it is only fair to let science explain it away again as only a unusual but natural stimulation of the brain. I think we are on the verge of a real merger of science and spirituality. Both sides will have to give a little and take a little. Don't you think? Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:00:53 -0500 From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: THEOS-L digest 761 Message-ID: <199612151101_MC1-D37-5710@compuserve.com> Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net > > I also believe that Alan and Tom Robertson are one and the same! S=o) > TTT If that's true, then Tom is Alan's evil twin. -Ann E. Bermingham Keith: No, I am Alan's evil twin and your evil twin, in fact we are septuplets - seven you know! Forgive me, I'm still sick! :) Happy holidays! ------------------------------< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:12:56 -0500 From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: On TSA Supposed Corruptions - WHat is their motive? Message-ID: <199612151113_MC1-D37-573E@compuserve.com> Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net > >JHE >If your view expresses anything near a consensus of opinion on >theos-l, this board has the potential of becoming a significant >balance to the Wheaton oligarchy. I hope it is. > >I would like to add that the censorship within the Adyar Keith: I vow to keep out of this since I have been burned in the past, but I would like to say that I think the motives behind the TSA oligarchy are "conservative" in the sinces that they want to preserve the best from the past and encourage the most level-headed and scholoarly in the present like Ken Wilber and a few others. They see their role as protecting the castle from the barbarians, heretics, fruitcakes and triaists (whatever that is)... if you get my drift. They just want to have a nice tea party, keep the dusty archives safe etc. for another 500 or so years and they will probably do it. I say good job! Perhaps that is why other outlets like TI may eventually be a real force, but in another direction of say uncovering the latent powers in humanity ( no sexism here!) Namaste Keith >(Wheaton) TS goes further than controlling National elections and >now Lodge assets. The Organization's control over the >publications that you mentioned also has a lot to do with what we >*think* we know about the history of the TS and the ideas it >promulgated. I have no information on which to base a definite opinion about any specifics of the "Wheaton oligarchy" except that I personally think very highly of one of the ex-national officers who is a member of my lodge, but I do not see any necessary problem in their publishing some books and not others. They have to draw the line somewhere. Should they publish "Mein Kampf?" Or does this imply a misunderstanding of the degree to which they censor material which is clearly relevant to Theosophy? Krishnamurti has been a controversial subject within the TS, but we have hi< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:16:22 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Sexism etc Message-ID: <19961215191619.AAA21794@LOCALNAME> At 07:51 PM 12/14/96 +0000, Murray Stentiford wrote: >it's worth >considering words as having a body or presence on each plane, rather as a >human being does, so the physical plane is the sound or the print, then >there's an emotional or affective level, a logical or conceptual level, and >in some cases, higher. All this in an energy field of associations and >resonances branching out from the central word. So when you deliver the >word, you deliver the whole package with its connections, and those with the >relevant antennae can pick it all up. Hmmmm. Points to a need for >Mindfulness - something we can all do with more of. That words have mental and emotional content, at the very least, is primarily what makes communication so complicated and, as you say, necessitates caution in jumping to conclusions about what the speaker meant. In more artistic areas such as poetry, the more emotional content that words have, the better, but in discussing more scientific subjects such as philosophy and mathematics, precision is crucial, so that words should be meant as literally as possible. It astounds me how frowned upon the words "superior" and 'inferior" are. As K. Paul Johnson pointed out, these words have emotional content all out of proportion to their literal meanings. It is as if the word "inherent" was generally understood to be attached to them, unless strenuously denied, so that, if one rather meant to attach the word "acquired" before them, one has a difficult uphill climb. To believe in inherent differences between people, as Nazism does, would contradict the Theosophical idea of the common root and the identical potential of all human beings, but the only alternative to believing in acquired, actual differences between people is to regard them all as being identical in their actual development. Prejudice is wrong only if the idea of inherent differences between people is wrong, which raises the question of to what extent and about what should Theosophy be dogmatic. Should Theosophists have an open mind, for example, to the possibility that there are inherent differences between people or should we take a dogmatic stand against such an idea? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:27:40 +1300 From: Bee Brown Subject: Re: Questions on Karma Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961215192740.006981a8@whanganui.ac.nz> At 08:56 AM 15/12/96 -0500, you wrote: >1) If karma means that justice is inevitable, does that mean that it is >never good to act against injustice? Doesn't not acting against injustice >sanction it, and therefore encourage it, and therefore deserve it, so that, >to the one who did not act against it, it is no longer injustice? > >2) If karma means that we can never hope to get any more or less than we >have paid for, is there any ultimate gain or loss in anything? Does it then >even matter what we do? > >3) Is there good and bad karma, or just karma? > >The best answer I have to 1) is that I find it intuitively distasteful to >passively accept injustice, in spite of it being the apparently logical >conclusion to do so. I like to see Karma as harmony or disharmony with the laws of the Universe. We are either in harmony or we are not and as this earth life is for learning to expand our consciousness so that we can undestand how the laws work, I feel that justice and injustice are not really the appropriate words for it. We stumble through many incarnations learning through disharmony to align ourselves with the harmony of the Universe even if our personalities may not always desire to do so. In the end, I believe we get the message and gladly co-operate in our own unfolding. > >Similarly, with 2), striving to grow intuitively seems worth the effort, in >spite of the intellectual conclusion that the reward is only equal to the >effort. It is not a matter of what we get or don't get. By our very nature that we have built up over the learning period, we attract to ourselves any suitable situation that can resonate with ourselves. If a person has developed an expanded consciousness and resonates a deep loving kindness then among the situations that arrive at his/her doorstep, there will be loving kindness too because it can find an attraction in that person. > >With 3), it depends on whose perspective is being referred to. Since karma >can be pleasant or painful, believing in it has motivational power. But >from an acentric point of view, it has no value. Whether it is good or bad >depends on its relationship to its object. Karma is how each of us view it. As the saying goes, 'what is one person's treasure can be another's poison'. I understand good and bad to be relative to the person experiencing it. In Reality I do not believe that there is such descriptions, rather what motivates us to act is viewed by each of us through our desires and hopes and if it is not conducive to our personality then we view it as bad or unwanted. Yet we are told that we create these things for ourself. I have wondered if there is Karma as told by Theosophy. If we attract to ourselves what can resonate with us 'now' then we cannot expect to attract what does not, so we feel hard done to. The quality of our resonating seems to be what matters and this is what life is for, to build better and better qualities within that will resonate and attract better situations and help us climb the path. I understand that all life works in magnetic attraction or repulsion so it makes sense to me that the qualities of my being causes what I attract 'now' rather than something I may have done in the past. I may have been undiligent in past lives and not acquired enough harmonious qualities to make my present life resonate to pleasant situations but if I start to catch on to what it takes then I may start to put some effort into developing qualities that attract what I would like to happen. Just some idle thought that were prompted by this post Cheers. > > > Bee Brown Member Theosophy NZ, TI. I don't have a solution but I admire the problem. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:40:40 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: > > At 06:28 AM 12/15/96 +0000, cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) wrote: > > >...as Uncle Chuckie can verify, most men in the scene at SUBMISSIVE > >to women..... > > I have heard just the opposite, that dominant women are very hard for the > submissive men to find, and that the most common arrangement is a dominant > man with a submissive woman. > > How is what you are saying the opposite of what I have said? 70% of the men in the scene are SUBMISSIVE. 70% of the women are either DOMINANT or switch. It is hard for a submissive man to find a DOMINANT woman because these women make their own choices about who they want...and in a relationship they may really want a man their equal...meaning dominant. This is also true of other mammals..such as lions. The female does all of the hunting and protecting the cubs. The male lion sleeps around and waits for the female to bring home the kill. Sounds pretty dominant to me. Gertrude the Proud Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 07:28:03 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Masters and the Path Message-ID: <199612160115.UAA04122@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: m.k. ramadoss > > I just found out that the book is out of print. Does it indicate any > trend in the direction of the philosophy that Adyar want to steer TS > into? > > Just a topic to speculate. I ordered a copy last fall and when it was delivered there was a note enclosed that said it was the last one in their warehouse. Does this mean it's some kind of collector's item now? What about The Science and The Sacraments? -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:16:41 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <199612160115.UAA04162@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > At 06:28 AM 12/15/96 +0000, cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) wrote: > > >...as Uncle Chuckie can verify, most men in the scene at SUBMISSIVE > >to women..... > > I have heard just the opposite, that dominant women are very hard for the > submissive men to find, and that the most common arrangement is a dominant > man with a submissive woman. > Fellow Theo-lers! Isn't it amazing? I've seen this list go from the discussion of whether psychic powers should be encouraged or discouraged to whither the Master exist in our heads or in KPJ's book. Then there was the guy riding a horse and wearing the plumed hat, of recent note. Before that was the CWL wars and the young man from ULT with his definite opinons. Who can forget the Boston Lodge and the many legal battles that has led to a change in the by-laws. Still simmering beneath the surface is the gender-netural language issue and how it pertains to the Three Objects. Long ago, we were talking about grokking and enjoying it, but that faded out. This past summer, Chuckie regaled us with his posts about the Annual Meeting and Summer School, where he alternately loved and hated it. But now, this list has truly reached its zenith. With the topic of S&M, this list could go further than it ever has so far. Keep it up! (If I may use that kind of language.) If we get explicit, graphics and even include some downloads of pictures, we might attract a whole new slew of posters. Why even Doss may get his wish - those elusive excutive members of TS, who are never heard from here, may suddenly appear on the list. In disguise, of course, wearing black masks and brandishing whips. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:19:40 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Help Message-ID: <32B4A3A1.3A57@withoutwalls.com> >It astounds me how frowned upon the words >"superior" and "inferior" are. As K. Paul Johnson pointed out, these words >have emotional content all out of proportion to their literal meanings. The memory of pain and oppression and the "crack of the brutal whip" aren't easily forgotten by those who've suffered them. >It is as if the word "inherent" was generally understood to be attached to >them, unless strenuously denied, so that, if one rather meant to attach the >word "acquired" before them, one has a difficult uphill climb. To believe >in inherent differences between people, as Nazism does, would contradict the >Theosophical idea of the common root and the identical potential of all >human beings, but the only alternative to believing in acquired, actual >differences between people is to regard them all as being identical in their >actual development. Prejudice is wrong only if the idea of inherent >differences between people is wrong, which raises the question of to what >extent and about what should Theosophy be dogmatic. Should Theosophists >have an open mind, for example, to the possibility that there are inherent >differences between people or should we take a dogmatic stand against such >an idea? I think the solution lies in accepting that in our inward parts we are one, while our personal existence is a varihued diversity. I opt for appreciation. There is voluminous theosophical material already available that offers insight and support. Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:36:26 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Masters and the Path Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > ---------- > > From: m.k. ramadoss > > > > I just found out that the book is out of print. Does it indicate any > > trend in the direction of the philosophy that Adyar want to steer TS > > into? > > > > Just a topic to speculate. > > I ordered a copy last fall and when it was delivered there > was a note enclosed that said it was the last one in their > warehouse. > > Does this mean it's some kind of collector's item now? > What about The Science and The Sacraments? > > -Ann E. Bermingham Glad you got the last copy. It is a book in my small but selective collection. May become a collector's item. The Science of Sacraments, I vaguely recall Health Research publishing it. MKr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 01:13:02 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: In message <2.2.32.19961215135719.006c41c8@mail.eden.com>, M K Ramadoss writes >BTW, I believe K did not go into the TS property at Adyar out of his own >choice and it was not a question of his not being allowed in. He was always >highly respected and regarded by Theosophists of every shade in India -- >which is so even to this day. > >As an additional info, one of those sued by in the suit by CA Attorney >General and other plaintiffs is now sitting on the Theosophical Investment >Trust. What an irony? This is a subject that has been aired before, and which Doss is well- informed about. Please Doss, rather than mentioning TS officials obliquely in this way, will you not name them outright? The way you have out the above, there is a suggestion (IMHO) of a slur upon the person you mention, but this person has no right of reply if you do not give a name. If you know who people are, why not name them. as happens with John Algeo for example? 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, 16 Dec 1996 00:56:19 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Tom Robertson? Message-ID: In message <199612150132.UAA20000@newman.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >If that's true, then Tom is Alan's evil twin. Impossible. I am unique. Monogenetic. 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, 15 Dec 1996 19:49:47 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > Fellow Theo-lers! Isn't it amazing? I've seen this list go from the > discussion of > whether psychic powers should be encouraged or discouraged to whither the > Master exist in our heads or in KPJ's book. Then there was the guy riding a > horse > and wearing the plumed hat, of recent note. Before that was the CWL wars > and > the young man from ULT with his definite opinons. Who can forget the > Boston Lodge and the many legal battles that has led to a change in the > by-laws. > Still simmering beneath the surface is the gender-netural language issue > and how > it pertains to the Three Objects. Long ago, we were talking about grokking > and > enjoying it, but that faded out. > > This past summer, Chuckie regaled us with his posts about the Annual > Meeting > and Summer School, where he alternately loved and hated it. > > But now, this list has truly reached its zenith. With the topic of S&M, > this list > could go further than it ever has so far. Keep it up! (If I may use that > kind of language.) > If we get explicit, graphics and even include some downloads of pictures, > we > might attract a whole new slew of posters. > > Why even Doss may get his wish - those elusive excutive members of > TS, who are never heard from here, may suddenly appear on the list. > In disguise, of course, wearing black masks and brandishing whips. > > -Ann E. Bermingham We are all learning every day. As for seeing the executive members of TS, who are never heard from here, I hope you are right. Looking forward and let us all get our helmets ready!!! I also do not discount the fact that the Internet must be drawing the attention of the Real Founders and I am sure that They are working hard to see how it can help the "great orphan Humanity." So don't be surprised if you catch a glimpse of the results of Their unseen hand. Of course, our continuing gratitude to the foresight of John E Mead for providing us this forum. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 19:53:47 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Help Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Mark Kusek wrote: > > I think the solution lies in accepting that in our inward parts we are > one, while our personal existence is a varihued diversity. I opt for > appreciation. There is voluminous theosophical material already > available that offers insight and support. > > Mark How about considering that each one of is unique and important so there is no question about how anyone can be superior or inferior to anyone else. That levels the playing field and makes life easier. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:00:58 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message <2.2.32.19961215135719.006c41c8@mail.eden.com>, M K Ramadoss > writes > >BTW, I believe K did not go into the TS property at Adyar out of his own > >choice and it was not a question of his not being allowed in. He was always > >highly respected and regarded by Theosophists of every shade in India -- > >which is so even to this day. > > > >As an additional info, one of those sued by in the suit by CA Attorney > >General and other plaintiffs is now sitting on the Theosophical Investment > >Trust. What an irony? > > This is a subject that has been aired before, and which Doss is well- > informed about. Please Doss, rather than mentioning TS officials > obliquely in this way, will you not name them outright? > > The way you have out the above, there is a suggestion (IMHO) of a slur > upon the person you mention, but this person has no right of reply if > you do not give a name. If you know who people are, why not name them. > as happens with John Algeo for example? > > Alan All the facts are in public record in the courts of California. Radha Sloss' book on Krishnamurti resulted in more information coming out. So I am not privy to any non public information. I will take your advise into consideration. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:46:56 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <32B4D440.5CCE@sprynet.com> m.k. ramadoss wrote: > In the general context of the above, I would like to point out that we > have not seen any present or past elected officials on theos-l. Nor have > we seen the mention of theos-xxx in Quest Magazine. This makes one > wonder. Has theos-xxx offered to pay for an advertisement in Quest Magazine? How many theosophical activities got mentioned other than articles or through paid advertising in Quest Magazine. Note that the lists WERE mentioned in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST. Also note that, although none of the National directors participate on the list, a number of local directors do, as do some members of the National Staff (like Elizabeth Trumpler). There is no conspiracy against these mailing lists; when John Algeo and I discussed this list, his only suggestion to me was to try and encourage theosohpical discussion on the list. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:10:52 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > m.k. ramadoss wrote: > > In the general context of the above, I would like to point out that we > > have not seen any present or past elected officials on theos-l. Nor have > > we seen the mention of theos-xxx in Quest Magazine. This makes one > > wonder. > > Has theos-xxx offered to pay for an advertisement in Quest Magazine? I do not know. > How many theosophical activities got mentioned other than articles or > through paid advertising in Quest Magazine. Note that the lists WERE I do not know. May be someone knowledgeable can enlighten us. > mentioned in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST. Also note that, although none of > the National directors participate on the list, a number of local > directors do, as do some members of the National Staff (like Elizabeth > Trumpler). There is no conspiracy against these mailing lists; when John > Algeo and I discussed this list, his only suggestion to me was to try > and encourage theosohpical discussion on the list. > I am glad to know that a number of local directors do participate. But I am yet to see any current or former elected National official on theos-xxxx lists. May be I missed someone? If so, can someone enlighten us? All of us know Elizabeth Trumpler, Chief Librarian of Olcott Library has posted messages. She has been most prompt, responsive and helpful when any question on any publication came up, which has happened so many times. And every one has been grateful. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:12:56 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <961216001255_841079565@emout01.mail.aol.com> Gertrude, In the public scene, that is true. Submissive men have traditionally been the ones with the most trouble finding partners and thus gravitate to the clubs more than dominant ones. There are no accurate figures available on the real proportions of dominant/submissive men and women who play because the vast, vast, vast bulk of them will never need to set foot in any organization. My personal feeling is that the true numbers are about even for both in the real world. Chuck the dominant heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:13:06 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <961216001304_235667342@emout16.mail.aol.com> Ann, Unfortunately the list can't handle even encoded graphics. Otherwise I've got some goodies. But for those who are interested, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bondage has all sorts of nice stuff. Now aside from the great joy I get in using it to annoy people what this has to do with Theosophy is totally beside me, but I guess it is my fault. That's what I get for not being able to resist the chance to raise eyebrows. Good thing I have a machine that gives my karma to the neighbors. Now Adele chasing John with a whip... Chuck, you cut that out! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:30:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961216053001.00696e4c@mail.eden.com> Chuck: Theosophy is about real life -- at least to my unenlightened understanding. Theosophy is not just globes, chains, planes, bodies, monads, manvantaras etc etc. Not that I rule them all out. >From a very practical standpoint on a day to day matter, it is our daily life and that of those we come in contact with in whatever circumstances they may be. So let us land our feet firmly on the ground so that we do not lose balance!!! Or else accidentally we may end up with a one way ticket to astral plane!!! (I do not know anything about astral plane first hand -- so please no one ask me questions about it!!!) MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 16 00:37:00 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Banana-Raspberry and Nuts Bread Message-ID: <199612160537.AAA23702@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >At 11:31 PM 12/14/96 +0000, The Triaist wrote: >>A recipe where bananas and rasberries can work together in an environment >>of equality. *sigh* What a wonderful world we live in. >> >>:) > >It is an insult to raspberries everywhere. :( :P pessimist. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 16 00:38:31 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Tom Robertson? Message-ID: <199612160538.AAA23751@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >---------- >> From: MKusek@aol.com >> >> I also believe that Alan and Tom Robertson are one and the same! S=o) >> TTT > >If that's true, then Tom is Alan's evil twin. > >-Ann E. Bermingham Tom is evil? Nah. but then, its all relative, isn't it. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 16 00:43:22 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: On being harsh Message-ID: <199612160543.AAA24062@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >Well, now just for that, John the Triaist! ---- remember this? > >>:) ...My rook is in position, Kym. The clock is ticking.:) >>(Wow, I had to crack my knuckles for that one.) > >N-KB3 (Knight moves to King Bishop three). The clock is ticking! > >Now that's harsh! :-) > > >Kym (While scratching temple in deep thought) I wish I knew where my other pieces were. Maybe we should actually play a game. A real one. Are you up for it? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:25:20 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Questions on Karma Message-ID: <199612160725.AAA26349@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >3) Is there good and bad karma, or just karma? I guess I think there is "just karma," which, I must say, BY ITSELF, certainly seems pointless, almost bordering on cruelty. We create karma by actions, and it is impossible to live without action, so karma continues to grind away. We can't work off or escape karma even if we realize what we have done; karma ain't got no heart, it cares not about repentence or remorse. Karma also doesn't have the gumption to even tell us the specifics of why we are experiencing what we are experiencing. So many people, when something terrible happens, plummet into despair because they do not know why - and in order to fully learn and cope with a problem one must know the why. For some, cynisism takes over. Books like "Why Bad Things Happen To Good People" sell like crazy, and in turn offer, in my opinion, erroneous and dangerous answers such as "It is God's Will." That "It is God's Will" phrase is the single most responsible reason God looks like a despot who loves to play "teacher's pet." Karma is as much a motivator to do good deeds for those who believe in reincarnation as hell is to those who believe in only one life on earth. Both hell and karma prompt us to do deeds only to keep our hineys out of the "fire" or "samsara" - neither encourage actions of 'good' out of simple altruism. And there's always that sticky karmic conclusion where you can only give to another, or hurt another, as much as their own karmic cup will hold. Various pathways to "liberation" offer to beat karma at it's own game, but the pathways seem to emphasize a 'disassociation' that seems uncomfortable, at least to me. Mahayanna Buddhism has an opposite approach, the Bodhisattvas, but that doctrine has some pretty severe punishments for rather minor offenses. I have to be careful not to let the karma thing trick me into believing I'm in the fortunate state I am in simply because I was so well-mannered in previous lifetimes (which it occasionally does). Is the reason I do not go to bed hungry my karma? Is the reason two-thirds of the world does their karma? Maybe and maybe not. Karma's a handy little tool, but it doesn't seem to work for all construction jobs. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:54:26 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <199612160754.AAA26657@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >I have already tangled with Alexis in a newsgroup, and for much more >innocuous statements than I have made on this list, which he did not begin >to understand, he was far more insulting to me than anyone has been here, >calling me, among many other gems, "a blithering idiot." Shocking! Well, you can rest easy here, Tom. Theos-l runs a tight ship, you'll see none of that low-down, filthy terminology used here. Should one step out of line, worry not, the others will restore him/her to their proper place quick as a lick. The mellifluent manner is the hallmark of theos-l. >It also does not surprise me to hear that his politics is of the far left. >Those who believe in extreme egalitarianism are notorious for how they regard >those who dare to make comparisons as inferior. As a member of the "far left" let me apologize for a fellow (!) "lefty." We "lefties" are having a hard enough time as it is - we being so rude, mouthy, and egalitarian. We needn't make any more "enemies." Why, we are now only 16% of the population. . .so see, Tom, for you and others of your political persuasion, life has never been better. I say, enjoy it while you can. . .(tee hee) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:10:59 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <19961216101056.AAA18892@LOCALNAME> At 07:56 AM 12/16/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Tom wrote: >>I have already tangled with Alexis in a newsgroup, and for much more >>innocuous statements than I have made on this list, which he did not begin >>to understand, he was far more insulting to me than anyone has been here, >>calling me, among many other gems, "a blithering idiot." >Shocking! Especially since you so strongly disagree with it, huh? >Well, you can rest easy here, Tom. Theos-l runs a tight ship, >you'll see none of that low-down, filthy terminology used here. Should one >step out of line, worry not, the others will restore him/her to their proper >place quick as a lick. The mellifluent manner is the hallmark of theos-l. I had never even come close to hearing the word "mellifluent" before, but, once I looked it up, its appropriateness was, of course, obvious. It _is_ nice to feel so safe and secure here. >We "lefties" are having a hard enough time as it is - we being so rude, mouthy, >and egalitarian. We needn't make any more "enemies." Why, we are now only >16% of the population. . .so see, Tom, for you and others of your political >persuasion, life has never been better. > >I say, enjoy it while you can. . .(tee hee) As far as I know, the United States is the least taxed country, and yet, even here, total taxes take more than half of the average income. Individualism is drowning in a sea of bureaucracy, so I think I understand what the "tee hee" behind my back is all about. What amazes me is that most Theosophists whom I know personally also lean left. I would think that a philosophy which so heavily emphasizes individual growth and independence from authority would attract more righties than lefties. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 96 09:09:31 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Tim Maroney's Remarks on Daniel Caldwell's Message-ID: <199612151710.JAA73968@scv1.apple.com> >Mr. Maroney is entitled to his opinion of my HOUSE OF CARDS. >But I find it interesting to compare his estimation of my paper with >letters I have received in the last 2 or 3 weeks from (for example) 8 or >9 individuals who all have PhDs. Most of these individuals are not in >any way proponents of Theosophy and yet they have complimented me >for writing my paper. One said that he was impressed with my >"analysis" of Johnson's thesis. Another PhD said he read the entire >paper with great interest. This is an argument from authority, a classic fallacy that adds nothing to the debate. It is Caldwell's resort to this kind of fallacious argument that has made it impossible for me to take his paper seriously. >I am somewhat surprised that Mr. Maroney says he could not read >the entire HOUSE OF CARDS. The paper is only 41 pages long!! I can't listen to a whole Rush Limbaugh show either, and that's only an hour. >Even some reviewers have written that Johnson's three books >were not that easy to read. Johnson sometimes goes into what may seem >like needless side issues or spends pages on details not really that >relevant to his main themes. Some people may find such things >distracting, boring, etc. I don't and I believe such criticisms >are really of minor importance since they relate >to matters of "form" and not of substance. Here we see an example of the most irritating feature of Caldwell's writing -- rather than simply answering Johnson's points, he is constantly comparing himself to Johnson. "Well, if you think _my_ writing is boring, you should see Johnson's! You must think he's _really_ boring!" This is a non sequitur. Forget the personal conflict and focus on the issues. >No doubt, my paper could have been improved and the arguments might >have been more concisely stated. Criticize the "outer form" of my paper all >you want. Nevertheless, I believe that I deal with a number of CRUCIAL >issues of SUBSTANCE and provide ample evidence as well as detailed >reasoning for rejecting many of Johnson's statements. And here, through the use of ALL CAPITALS, we see a further descent into emotionalism. It is impossible for me to take such emotional writing, which descends alternately into extremes of aggrandizement of self and derogation of another, as serious scholarship. Is it possible that you could try to take your paper, extract these tidbits of "CRUCIAL issues of SUBSTANCE", express them concisely, and re-repesent it in that form? >*Unfortunately, Mr. Maroney does NOT deal with any of my substantive >criticisms.* >He is apparently not interested in addressing directly >the criticisms and issues I have raised. But if he changes >his mind and wants to write something on THE ISSUES covered in my paper, I >will be more than happy to post his comments on the World Wide Web with >my HOUSE OF CARDS. I saw one point in the long-winded initial section, before giving up. It was that a single diary account of Olcott's about a personage who is not specifically named as Morya would be difficult to reconcile with Johnson's theory of Morya's identity, because a Maharajah would not travel without an entourage. This person is identified by Caldwell as Morya on the basis of later statements by Olcott that his master had been Morya. Exactly no time is spent considering the possibility that this person was not thought by Olcott to be Morya -- remember that Hume changed masters at least once. No time is spent considering that Olcott was a suggestible and fantasy-prone individual who could easily have been led to believe any kind of explanation, including the idea that someone he'd never seen before was somehow mystically consubstantial with someone else through guru-chela telepathy, or that despite the difference in faces it was actually the same person who was possessed of mystical powers of disguise, or simply that he had a new Master for the evening. I am not saying that any of these speculations is necessarily correct, I am simply pointing out that alternatives are not explored by Caldwell at all. He knows where he's going and doesn't bother with any signs pointing in other directions. Again this creates the image of a preconceived and personally motivated piece of writing, not one from which I expect to be able to learn anything on a scholarly level. >Yes, I have been plain spoken in my criticisms of Johnson's thesis and >research BUT I have also tried to show the reader my reasoning, etc. >for making such frank assessments of Johnson's research. I would be glad to see a criticism of Johnson's thesis and reasoning. This I have not seen in your paper. I have seen plenty of criticism that seems targeted at Johnson's ethics and personality, however. >I am glad that Mr. Maroney mentions William Kingsland's WAS SHE [BLAVATSKY] A >CHARLATAN? This 60 page analysis of the Hodgson Report points out many of >the inconsistencies and misstatements, etc in Richard Hodgson's attack on >Madame Blavatsky. Maroney characterizes Kingsland's analysis as >"Theosophical polemics" but he fails to mention any of the excellent >points Kingsland makes about Hodgson's Report. Anyone who is interested >in reading Kingsland's analysis can e-mail me for more details on how >to obtain his paper. Kingsland makes exactly one point of any substance in dozens of pages. That is that Hodgson committed an eroor in attributing the holding of the keys in spring to Damodar rather than to the Coulombs. Kingsland surrounds this observation with some much froth and spew that I was almost unable to pick it out from the background noise. He then proceeds to blow it up into one of his many hateful attacks on Hodgson's character, making an absurd accusation that Hodgson must have known this was false and was every sort of liar, cheat and swindler for committing one error about facts he was forced to deduce at second hand. For asll this, it is a point of almost no importance to Hodgson's overall case. I am not surprised to find that Caldwell considers Kingsland's writing admirable. What kind of Theosophist can't put aside his hatred? I am sad to say, from my experience of Theosophical writing, that it seems to be a very normal kind. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 12:28:32 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: KPJ & Algeo Message-ID: > "Your House of Cards sticks right to the point and does not indulge in any > sidebar personal asides. For that reason, it is valuable and insightful." > Apparently, some scholars do not agree with Mr. Maroney's assessment > of my paper. Scholars never entirely agree on *anything*. > I am somewhat surprised that Mr. Maroney says he could not read > the entire HOUSE OF CARDS. The paper is only 41 pages long!! I didn't get beyond the first few pages either. It seemed to be composed of some historical arguments mixed with some sort of clearly personal motivation - and it just wasn't worth the effort to try to disentangle the two. > > I wonder what Mr. Maroney thinks of Dr. John Algeo's THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY > review of Johnson's THE MASTER REVEALED? For myself, I found it to be exactly what I would have expected from Dr. John Algeo. I found it curious from the beginning that the TS Publishing House did not publish KPJ's books. Surely, even if people did not agree with the books, they are a significant contribution to the body of Theosophical writings, surely meet and more than surpass the literary standards of the THP ... in fact far exceed the level of a lot of the stuff coming out of the THP. It isn't difficult to predict the response of someone who probably was involved in the editorial decision to reject the books. Even more so because, much to the dismay of the rather inbred circles of the Theosophical leadership, the books not only made it without the help of the TS bureaucracy, but were received with generally high praise outside of TS circles (by people who also have "PhD's") and have sold far better in the general population than anything Algeo or any of the rest of KPJ's critics have produced. No surprise at all then that within TS circles there have been very intense attacks on the books. One of the things that some of the critics might be missing, however, is that of just what people are finding of value in the books. I have no idea whether his thesis is correct or not - in fact I doubt there will *ever* be anything like *definative* proof of whom the Masters were, and *anyone* who has the guts to venture a thesis is likely going to be slammed ... the true believers in the TS will always have a vested interest in the Masters remaining mysterious and almost other-worldly. I notice not one of KPJ's critics have bothered to actually put forward a complete thesis of their own ... and if they had bothered to, they would probably also find how difficult a thing it is to do, how many interests would be tilted against them doing so (if the research was not proceeding in approved channels), and as complete as their case was, how many different gaps would still be there - probably to be used as openings by those who would immediately start picking them to pieces. An armour-proof case *cannot* be built. The subjects of investigation were not just historical personages, but personages that apparently went considerably out of their way to *hide* their identities - and even while they were alive, and in active communication with HPB & others, virtually no one even then could discover who they were ... and trying to do so at the distance of a century seems well-nigh impossible. But in the *attempt* to do so, KPJ produced a book that, unlike almost everyone else, seemed to have no interest in either elevating the Masters into gods, nor dismissing them as charlatans, was not trying to either confirm nor deny the current party-line, seemed to have no vested interest in anything other than exploring a possibility (and I'm not even sure whether KPJ would insist his thesis is anything other than a possibility), and, in doing so, he produced a book that to me was interesting less because of the thesis itself than because it fleshed out a number of things far more fully than I've seen before. I have a much fuller feeling for the mileau that gave birth to the TS. To those in the TS, there is a fixation on "DISPROVE THE THESIS AT ALL COSTS!" ... but for me, the thesis will no more be absolutely disproved than it will be absolutely proved ... and because of the fixation, much of his book will seem to be composed of "tangents" and things "off the subject" ... but those tangents were fascinating to me. The book, I believe, as with many books that have some sort of actual creative spirit behind them (a thing few critics will ever fully understand), grew into something larger than even the author intended - it transcended its own thesis. The critics will sweat and fume, and complain loudly that no one is taking their criticisms seriously, that no one is paying any attention to the "substantive" issues they are raising, that no one is paying nearly as much attention to them as they gave KPJ - and they will be right ... sum up the entire readership of everything the Algeos and Caldwells and others have written about the book, and it will be but the barest fraction of those that read the book, and will be mostly confined within obscurity of TS circles. And if they do not understand why this is, then they have not fully grasped what the book is, why KPJ did not *need* the TPH to get it published, why, outside of TS circles, it recieved praise from well known and reputable critical sources and is finding its way onto a lot of bookshelves that have few other "Theosophical" books - but (IMO) there will be little attempt to understand this, because to understand it would be to also understand why the TS has a declining membership, and has become virtually irrelevent to to modern world. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:44:22 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: Re: Tim Maroney's Remarks on Daniel Caldwell's Message-ID: <199612152144.OAA21141@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Caldwell wrote: >>Mr. Maroney is entitled to his opinion of my HOUSE OF CARDS. >>But I find it interesting to compare his estimation of my paper with >>letters I have received in the last 2 or 3 weeks from (for example) 8 or >>9 individuals who all have PhDs. Most of these individuals are not in >>any way proponents of Theosophy and yet they have complimented me >>for writing my paper. One said that he was impressed with my >>"analysis" of Johnson's thesis. Another PhD said he read the entire >>paper with great interest. Maroney replied: >This is an argument from authority, a classic fallacy that adds nothing >to the debate. It is Caldwell's resort to this kind of fallacious >argument that has made it impossible for me to take his paper seriously. Caldwell comments: I was not trying to argue from authority. Simply trying to point out to readers of Maroney's words that his opinion was not necessarily the only one. I certainly don't believe something JUST BECAUSE a PhD wrote it. Maybe these PhDs who wrote complimentary things about my paper were wrong or pulling my leg or ..... My only point was that some of these PhDs were able to wade through my prose and appreciate some of my criticisms. Whether they agreed or disagreed with my criticisms is a whole other issue. **************************************************************************** ****** Caldwell wrote: >>Even some reviewers have written that Johnson's three books >>were not that easy to read. Johnson sometimes goes into what may seem >>like needless side issues or spends pages on details not really that >>relevant to his main themes. Some people may find such things >>distracting, boring, etc. I don't and I believe such criticisms >>are really of minor importance since they relate >>to matters of "form" and not of substance. Maroney replied: >Here we see an example of the most irritating feature of Caldwell's >writing -- rather than simply answering Johnson's points, he is >constantly comparing himself to Johnson. "Well, if you think _my_ writing >is boring, you should see Johnson's! You must think he's _really_ >boring!" This is a non sequitur. Forget the personal conflict and focus >on the issues. Caldwell replies: I don't consider Johnson's writing boring. Never did. That was not my point. But I have read reviewers or talked to students of Theosophy who have said Johnson digressed too much and therefore they couldn't wade through his books. Especially in talking to some students of Theosophy, I got the impression that this somehow justifed not taking his thesis seriously. A lot of writers are "boring" or their writing style is distracting, digressive,etc. but that doesn't mean that I would ignore their writings. I'm willing to wade through the outer form and try to understand their major points. Others are not inclined to do this. I am sorry if Mr. Maroney cannot wade through my personal style of writing and deal with the issues that I believe I have presented. **************************************************************************** ************* Caldwell wrote: >>No doubt, my paper could have been improved and the arguments might >>have been more concisely stated. Criticize the "outer form" of my paper all >>you want. Nevertheless, I believe that I deal with a number of CRUCIAL >>issues of SUBSTANCE and provide ample evidence as well as detailed >>reasoning for rejecting many of Johnson's statements. Maroney replied: >And here, through the use of ALL CAPITALS, we see a further descent into >emotionalism. It is impossible for me to take such emotional writing, >which descends alternately into extremes of aggrandizement of self and >derogation of another, as serious scholarship. Is it possible that you >could try to take your paper, extract these tidbits of "CRUCIAL issues of >SUBSTANCE", express them concisely, and re-repesent it in that form? Caldwell comments: I put words in caps to emphasize them and Maroney says I am further descending into "emotionalism". I also put titles of books in caps when I type in this e-mail medium. Am I descending even farther into emotionalism? : ) You mean that you can't scan a mere 41 pages and extract those tidbits? Have you ever completely read through HPB's major two works or do you need an abridgement of her works, too? : ) If you do not have enough interest or curiosity or whatever to read through 41 pages, then don't. Maybe Jerry HE or some more patient soul will be so kind as to extract the ESSENCE of those 41 pages and present IT to you. **************************************************************************** ************** Caldwell wrote: >>*Unfortunately, Mr. Maroney does NOT deal with any of my substantive >>criticisms.* >>He is apparently not interested in addressing directly >>the criticisms and issues I have raised. But if he changes >>his mind and wants to write something on THE ISSUES covered in my paper, I >>will be more than happy to post his comments on the World Wide Web with >>my HOUSE OF CARDS. Maroney replied: >I saw one point in the long-winded initial section, before giving up. It >was that a single diary account of Olcott's about a personage who is not >specifically named as Morya would be difficult to reconcile with >Johnson's theory of Morya's identity, because a Maharajah would not >travel without an entourage. This person is identified by Caldwell as >Morya on the basis of later statements by Olcott that his master had been >Morya. Exactly no time is spent considering the possibility that this >person was not thought by Olcott to be Morya -- remember that Hume >changed masters at least once. No time is spent considering that Olcott >was a suggestible and fantasy-prone individual who could easily have been >led to believe any kind of explanation, including the idea that someone >he'd never seen before was somehow mystically consubstantial with someone >else through guru-chela telepathy, or that despite the difference in >faces it was actually the same person who was possessed of mystical >powers of disguise, or simply that he had a new Master for the evening. I >am not saying that any of these speculations is necessarily correct, I am >simply pointing out that alternatives are not explored by Caldwell at >all. He knows where he's going and doesn't bother with any signs pointing >in other directions. Again this creates the image of a preconceived and >personally motivated piece of writing, not one from which I expect to be >able to learn anything on a scholarly level. Caldwell comments: Say what.....?? Maroney says he saw only ONE POINT [note: I'm being emotional here : ) ] in the whole first section of my paper. I dare say that there are a number of points made in that first section. But I can't do Maroney's thinking for him. But interested readers of my HOUSE OF CARDS can NOW take all these "alternatives" suggested by Maroney and carefully compare them with the testimony of Olcott and decide for themselves whether these alternatives hold water or not. THANKS for listing the alternatives. I will certainly try to think through each one of these suggested scenarios. Again I will extend the offer: if Mr. Maroney wants to write up two or three pages on these alternatives, I will post them on the WWW with my HOUSE OF CARDS. I like to make people think. **************************************************************************** *************** Caldwell wrote: >>Yes, I have been plain spoken in my criticisms of Johnson's thesis and >>research BUT I have also tried to show the reader my reasoning, etc. >>for making such frank assessments of Johnson's research. Maroney replies: >I would be glad to see a criticism of Johnson's thesis and reasoning. >This I have not seen in your paper. I have seen plenty of criticism that >seems targeted at Johnson's ethics and personality, however. Caldwell replies: What does one say to such a statement? If you do not see valid criticism of Johnson's thesis in my paper, then that's your perception. Okay. Fine. I certainly will not waste any more words trying to convince you otherwise. **************************************************************************** ************* Caldwell wrote: >>I am glad that Mr. Maroney mentions William Kingsland's WAS SHE [BLAVATSKY] A >>CHARLATAN? This 60 page analysis of the Hodgson Report points out many of >>the inconsistencies and misstatements, etc in Richard Hodgson's attack on >>Madame Blavatsky. Maroney characterizes Kingsland's analysis as >>"Theosophical polemics" but he fails to mention any of the excellent >>points Kingsland makes about Hodgson's Report. Anyone who is interested >>in reading Kingsland's analysis can e-mail me for more details on how >>to obtain his paper. Maroney replies: >Kingsland makes exactly one point of any substance in dozens of pages. >That is that Hodgson committed an eroor in attributing the holding of the >keys in spring to Damodar rather than to the Coulombs. Kingsland >surrounds this observation with some much froth and spew that I was >almost unable to pick it out from the background noise. He then proceeds >to blow it up into one of his many hateful attacks on Hodgson's >character, making an absurd accusation that Hodgson must have known this >was false and was every sort of liar, cheat and swindler for committing >one error about facts he was forced to deduce at second hand. For asll >this, it is a point of almost no importance to Hodgson's overall case. I >am not surprised to find that Caldwell considers Kingsland's writing >admirable. Caldwell comments: Let's see. I only made one point of substance in my section I, and Kingsland makes only one point in dozens of pages. I guess we should be thankful for those concessions! "much froth and spew"?? "one of his many hateful attacks on Hodgson"?? Etc. etc Do I detect a certain degree of emotionalism in these choice phrases? : ) **************************************************************************** ********** Maroney wrote: >What kind of Theosophist can't put aside his hatred? >I am sad to say, from my experience of Theosophical writing, that it >seems to be a very normal kind. Caldwell comments: Yes, yes, those Theosophists are such a hateful lot. So glad most people are non-Theosophists who are very unemotional and so perceptive. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:11:02 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Questions on Karma Message-ID: <19961216101056.AAB18892@LOCALNAME> At 07:28 AM 12/16/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Books like "Why Bad >Things Happen To Good People" sell like crazy, and in turn offer, in my >opinion, erroneous and dangerous answers such as "It is God's Will." That >"It is God's Will" phrase is the single most responsible reason God looks >like a despot who loves to play "teacher's pet." An omniscient being would not have free will. >I have to be careful not to let the karma thing trick me into believing I'm >in the fortunate state I am in simply because I was so well-mannered in >previous lifetimes (which it occasionally does). Is the reason I do not go >to bed hungry my karma? Is the reason two-thirds of the world does their >karma? Maybe and maybe not. I have never understood how the actions of past lives directly cause present circumstances. Rather than a direct link, it is more likely analogous to a bank account, in which the benefits of using a specific withdrawal is not directly tied to any specific deposit, but is drawn from a common pool. It is even more likely analogous to the results of flipping a coin many times, where the average will approach half heads and half tails, the results of any one flip are almost completely independent of such probability, and a result of heads does not cause a later result of tails. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 16 06:30:45 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Karma Theory Message-ID: <199612161130.GAA08117@envirolink.org> I always liked the analogy "Karma is like the ripples from a pebble thrown into a pond". This is the way I have always understood it. On a minor, individualistic scale, as people often think of it, karma acts individually. I don't believe that karma is quite as simple as that. In fact, I don't think karma has anything to do with specific individuals. In other words, I don't think it's really appropriate to say "That person's karma is bad." Rather, it should say, "Darn, that person got a piece of a bad ripple". I think perhaps that we influence karma on humanity and nature as a whole depending on our actions. If, in our past lives, we were murderous scoundrels, we won't necessarily have a terrible next life. However, because of our actions in the past, we increase the chance of bad things happening to us in the future. This is how I believe karma was meant to be understood. In my understanding of esoteric philosophy, there is nothing that is "personal". The teaching was that your thoughts and actions affected ALL of humanity, including yourself, and in order to keep bad things from happening to yourself and everyone else (and everything), you were advised to do "good deeds" in order to make "good ripples" which would in turn touch others and influence their actions in a positive manner. To wrap it up, the more good you do in your lifetime, the better the chances that you and your sisters and brothers will have good things happen to them. The flip side of the coin, the more bad you do, the better the chances that bad things will happen. So I kind of agree with Tom that it is more of a "chance" type of deal. I can explain more if you don't understand where I'm coming from. :) I smile in your general direction. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 16 06:31:51 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <199612161131.GAA08128@envirolink.org> Did I miss something? What are you two talking about? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:53:02 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > what the "tee hee" behind my back is all about. What amazes me is that most > Theosophists whom I know personally also lean left. I would think that a > philosophy which so heavily emphasizes individual growth and independence > from authority would attract more righties than lefties. I was thrilled to see your comment. The moment Theosophy really touches someone, it appears that the fundamental proposition of helping "the orphan Humanity" -- ie. all the human beings with whom we come into contact and those who are affected by our actions -- biases our actions towards the general welfare than concentration on activities that enhances one's wealth etc. In that process there is a very dramatic thing happens -- one becomes more independent in thinking and also outspoken and intolerant when one seen injustice to the "little guy/gal". This is my reading; there may be others who disagree. If so , so be it. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:14:52 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Level Playing Field Message-ID: <32B54B01.561D@withoutwalls.com> Doss wrote: >How about considering that each one of us is unique and important so there >is no question about how anyone can be superior or inferior to anyone >else. That levels the playing field and makes life easier. >MKR You're preaching to the choir here, Doss. That's exactly what I meant by "opting for appreciation." That way, some can love to play their violins and some can love to listen. Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 07:28:39 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Mark Kusek wrote: > Doss wrote: > > >How about considering that each one of us is unique and important so there > >is no question about how anyone can be superior or inferior to anyone > >else. That levels the playing field and makes life easier. > > >MKR > > You're preaching to the choir here, Doss. > That's exactly what I meant by "opting for appreciation." > That way, some can love to play their violins and some can love to > listen. > > Mark Sorry I missed the point and glad that pointed out. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 07:32:48 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <199612161338.IAA20458@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > Ann, > Unfortunately the list can't handle even encoded graphics. Otherwise I've > got some goodies. > > But for those who are interested, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bondage has > all sorts of nice stuff. Thanks for the info. > > Now aside from the great joy I get in using it to annoy people what this has > to do with Theosophy is totally beside me, but I guess it is my fault. Actually, I've thought that it had a great deal to do with the Path. The issues of dominance/submissive are always there in guru/disciple relationships, clerical relationships and soul/personality relationships, as well as the traditonal male/female ones. But usually it is veiled behind other language. The first person I ever encountered who seemed to have grasped the connection of S/M to the spiritual path is Robert Anton Wilson, in his book Schrodinger's Cat. The next place I saw was in the works of Ann Rice. I don't view S/M as just some bizarre state of mind, but as something that exists and is being acted out all the time, everywhere and even in the highest places. Perhaps, even on this list. As below, so above and etc. > That's what I get for not being able to resist the chance to raise eyebrows. > Good thing I have a machine that gives my karma to the neighbors. > The Virgo points out things that we never noticed before. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 10:19:40 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: House of cards reply Message-ID: <199612161519.KAA18667@leo.vsla.edu> My response to Mr. Caldwell's criticisms was written in about two days soon after receiving a copy of his booklet; at the moment it is about ready to upload on David Lane's site, but working out some technical details and making a few editorial changes will hold that up for another couple of weeks or so. JHE quoted TM in a post about the Caldwell piece, but I had never seen TM's (Tim Maroney?) original post which for some reason didn't come in a digest. Can anyone forward it to me? One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's publicity for his piece is his claim that he has prepared an "in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson." What thesis? There are 32 people nominated as HPB's Masters in TMR, and Caldwell devoted the entirety of his 42 page argument to attacking my case for two of them. So his "debunking" attempt is in fact focused on two hypotheses only, and he doesn't even state what "the thesis of Johnson" is. JHE asks "Are we reasonably to expect any more than this?" after agreeing with TM that Mr. Caldwell's language and attitude are snide, personal, rabid, etc. My answer is yes, indeed, we have a right to expect criticism of books that is neither snide, personal nor rabid in tone. Certainly I have not seen any such level of hostility directed at any other author in my 18 years of Theosophical membership, so I imagined that I had a right to expect it not to be targeted at me. John Algeo disabused me of that delusion (his TH review being much more in the snide pejorative category than his AT one). As in the case of Dr. Algeo, I have tried to make my response a model of the tone of discourse that Theosophists *should* have a right to expect. That is, free of personal insults and appeals to authority, addressing one's opponent in a respectful and patient manner, dealing with the issues at hand thoroughly within the limits of reasonable length. My reply to Mr. Caldwell runs to 21 pages. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:58:54 -0500 (EST) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Masters and the Path Message-ID: A quick check with the Theosophical Publishing House shows that several copies of THE MASTERS AND THE PATH (paperback) are in stock here at Wheaton, and a shipment from India is on its way. The new TPH Adyar catalog (1996) lists both a hardcover and softcover edition, and as far as we know, there are no plans to let it go out of print. The edition currently published is an abridged version. THE SCIENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS is also listed in the catalog of both TPH Adyar and Quest Books. Elisabeth Trumpler Olcott Library ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > ---------- > > > From: m.k. ramadoss > > > > > > I just found out that the book is out of print. Does it indicate any > > > trend in the direction of the philosophy that Adyar want to steer TS > > > into? > > > > > > Just a topic to speculate. > > > > I ordered a copy last fall and when it was delivered there > > was a note enclosed that said it was the last one in their > > warehouse. > > > > Does this mean it's some kind of collector's item now? > > What about The Science and The Sacraments? > > > > -Ann E. Bermingham > > Glad you got the last copy. It is a book in my small but selective > collection. May become a collector's item. > > The Science of Sacraments, I vaguely recall Health Research publishing it. > > MKr > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:10:27 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Karma Message-ID: <32B5746B.E1@withoutwalls.com> Tom Robertson: 1) If karma means that justice is inevitable, does that mean that it is never good to act against injustice? Doesn't not acting against injustice sanction it, and therefore encourage it, and therefore deserve it, so that, to the one who did not act against it, it is no longer injustice? I'd say that acting against injustice relieves pain for the party you're helping, thereby you will be rewarded for your action in the next life. Also, the fact that your motivation is to relieve pain will help develop your character, which will be reborned with stronger faculties in helping you get rid of your karmic causes. It seems to me that not acting against injustice if it is right in front of you means that you have wasted any opportunities you may have to help others, therefore you have passed by the opportunity to get rid of some of your limitations of character, and a chance to gain stronger life tools. 2) If karma means that we can never hope to get any more or less than we have paid for, is there any ultimate gain or loss in anything? Does it then even matter what we do? IMO, we get what we put into it. If we are consciously aware that our actions in this life will affect in how quickly we will get rid of our karmic causes and build stronger a character for future lifetimes, we can try whatever we can in this lifetime to get rid of any of our limitations. We start from where we are. For example, if one has a tendency to be unfaithful, one can work on not being unfaithful in this lifetime. Consciously acting to control your own evolution will speed it up. 3) Is there good and bad karma, or just karma? I don't know whether there is good or bad karma. However, it seems to me that you can take actions or inactions that will either slow or speed up your development, or may degrade some of your developments. As far as my personal life, all my best friends and lovers have their first name begin with the letter "M". I didn't think I choose it. Shirley MacLaine said that whereever she travels, there is always construction happening in front of her hotel room. What do you make of that? TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:15:41 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Tom Robertson? Alan Bain? Message-ID: <32B575A4.714A@withoutwalls.com> Keith: No, I am Alan's evil twin and your evil twin, in fact we are septuplets - seven you know! Forgive me, I'm still sick! :) Happy holidays! TTT: I want to be Alan's evil twin, too! In fact, I'm sure the Triaist would wish Alan change him into his evil twin, too. It must be no fun being a carrot. We can have an army of Toms. I think Mark is channeling April Joy in his spare time. S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:18:11 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <32B5763A.2DC4@withoutwalls.com> Keith Price in digest 762: (no sexism here!) TTT: I love, love you, too, Keith! S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 08:21:35 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Look Boss, Da Pain, Da Pain... Message-ID: <32B57705.3979@withoutwalls.com> Mark: The memory of pain and oppression and the "crack of the brutal whip" aren't easily forgotten by those who've suffered them. TTT: He keeps on asking for more. S=o) TTT (Totally Tasteless Tart) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 20:07:57 -0800 From: Mika Perala Subject: Alexis Message-ID: <32B61C9D.3217@dlc.fi> > > I have already tangled with Alexis in a newsgroup, and for much more > innocuous statements than I have made on this list, which he did not begin > to understand, he was far more insulting to me than anyone has been here, > calling me, among many other gems, "a blithering idiot." > > When I respond to personal attacks, it is based on the optimism that my > response has a reasonable chance of playing a positive role in cleaning up > the mess. But with Alexis, I am already mostly convinced that he is beyond > my power to do much about. > It does not surprise me to learn that he has been involved on this list > before. I can still see his spirit around. It also does not surprise me to > hear that his politics is of the far left. Those who believe in extreme > egalitarianism are notorious for how they regard those who dare to make > comparisons as inferior. > I have been e-mailing with Alexis for some time now and though he has very strick opinions I get along with him very well. Actually he encourages me and even praises my music! Would you all believe that?!! Mika From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:37:53 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: ole ball and chain Message-ID: <32B588F1.135@withoutwalls.com> Chuck the Heretic: >Ann, >Unfortunately the list can't handle even encoded graphics. Otherwise I've >got some goodies. >But for those who are interested, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bondage has >all sorts of nice stuff. If that doesn't do it for you, we can draw some pictures. Name your position. TTT (Totally Tasteless Tart) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:47:32 -0800 From: April Joy Subject: Re: Identity of April Joy, and Sexism Message-ID: <32B4B844.3564@gnp.com> To Bart Lidosfsky regarding misquote: I must apologize to Bart Lidosfsky as my reply to Tom Robertson's Sexism post was accidently attributed to the wrong person. I had intended to include the whole header with Tom Robertson's name in it. Bart Lidofsky I hope you can accept my apology. Re: April Joy's idenity: >John Straughn: >Ack. Really? You didn't post the April Joy thing? Who did? I am she. I sent my post and them Alan quoted part of it. > Ack squared. That's impossible, she's dead! jk. > I've never seen April Joy on here before. She only pops in every once > in a while? Mumble. My death has been greatly exaggerated. This is the second time I have posted to this mail list. >Art House: > You mean Alan is not April Joy? S=o) Not unless we switched souls briefly. > Alan: > Hmmm - I haven't checked the current subscription list since November, > but someone posted either *as* "April Joy" or quoting "April Joy." > Maybe there is someone called "Spring Fun" doing it. Anyhow, 'twasn't > I. I subscribed in late November. > The Triaist: > I tell you. It's Alan's alter ego. Notice how he responds with words > like "brilliant" to her post. S=o) Thanks Alan. > Chuck the Heretic: > Is she any relation to April Showers? I haven't heard that one since grade school. > Mark: > best to you all, > and remember, *** "April Joy Lives!" *** She also post, dances and sings out of tune. To Tom Robertson: > I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he > believes that men and women are basically equal and then mentions one > way in which he believes men are superior, and that a woman can write > an article in response saying that men and women are basically equal, > and then mentions 23 ways that she considers women to be superior, and > the same man, responding to both, can call the male author a "sexist > bastard" and call the post of the female author "brilliant." Maybe > the name of this list should be renamed "Crusading for Feminism." It > is my understanding of Theosophy that it considers balance, not > matriarchy, to be the ideal. At what point in my initial reply to you did I say women were superior? I do not believe either gender is superior. The upper hand was kept by the brainwashing of women from birth to death for centuries. Man molded women in an image of a child and worked to have them believed they had little or no worth. This brainwashing and molding was helped by the power of the church, religious leaders (male) who preached that women must pay for the sins of Eve as well as be submissive to their husbands, fathers, brothers. Women were so indoctrinated in this belief that they could not fight for their rights because they would have sinned against God and dishonored there male relatives and husband. But slowly women woke up looked around and said no more. I am more than you allow me to be. By giving the direction of their lives to men they had lost the right to live freely and control their own destiny. Women are fighting for what they gave up to be loved by man and God. Women fight for the same rights and priviledges that some men feel is their exclusive right. It isn't about superiority it is about equal opportunity, freedom, and the right for a women to own herself. John Straughn: > Downplays? I don't understand. What about the fact that the > prejudices men face have encountered and are still encountering have > been downplayed for years. For instance, if I want a job as a > secretary, I probably won't get it because I am a man. If I want to > be a bank teller. Well, I can pretty much forget about that too. John, there are male tellers at almost every bank I have been to. Also I was a temporary secretary for a while and I have worked at many different business. During that time I met many male secretaries. Bank teller and secretarial fields are not closed to men. Men are often closed to trying work in these fields because THEY consider it to be a womans job. I knew one male secretary that would go ballistic if you called him a secretary, he was an Assistant. > A female CEO will refuse to hire a male secretary because she feels > that she would be inhibiting the rise of women in the job market if > she did so ... I have not seen a case where a women would not hire a male secretary in order to hire a woman. I find that some CEO women, unfortunately, will often stand in the way of other women. Sometimes the glass ceiling over the heads of women are being held over them by the women who have gone before them. > Perhaps(no, definitely) I wasn't making myself very clear. These are > present concerns for women, and should be properly addressed. But men > are faced with prejudiced decisions as well. (Custody battles favored > toward women; abortion rights (it's the father's child as well); > welfare (which is MUCH harder for a single man even with children to > recieve); Job discrimination (i.e. "female" jobs: bank tellers, > secretaries/clerks, social workers); Medical research > (Breast Cancer vs. Testicular cancer, for instance); and others). > Men have just as much going against them as women. It's just that > men, for fear of being accused of losing their "masculinity" choose > not to say much about it. Custody battles are not favored toward women. Women must hold themselves to a higher moral stander than man do to keep their children. Recently a woman lost her children because of her sexual orientation not because of the care her child received. A woman can lose her children if the father claims she is seeing more than one man, while it doesn't matter how many women the man is "seeing". In court a woman's sexual past is admissible while often the man's sexual past is not allowed into the hearings. As with the OJ trial a womans abuse from a husband/boyfriend is not always allowed as evidence of character of the man in a court hearing. Until recently if a woman was abused by her husband she was encouraged by churches, legal system and social system to return to her husband and be a good wife. For too long if a woman had a sexual relationship with a man she lost the right to her body. If she was beat up, it wasn't abuse it was a "domestic fight". Now women are being listened to and are having some help to escape their abusers. > If a man slaps a woman across the face because she slapped him (which > is something I would never do, but this is hypothetical) and she calls > the police, the man will be thrown in jail. In court the man will > testify that his wife hit him first. Ya know what happens? The judge > laughs and says "Three years". Men don't get thrown in jail that easily, but if they do they are usually out the next day. Very rarely does a man get 3yrs for hitting a women if he has a relationship with that woman. The "relationship" status often nullifies a status as victim of assault to a charge of "domestic brawl". Especially if the woman hits back. I have seen one case of where the woman hit the man and she hit him and the police took the woman to jail. But more often woman are the abused not the abuser. I have been in a domestic abuse situation and it is very difficult to prove abuse by a man. The legal system goes to great length to make women drop the charges. If it goes to court the Judge will give the man a slap on the wrist with a suspended sentence or community service. It usually takes the near death or death of a woman for most men to receive any length of time in jail. --- At the present time more men have greater job security, opportunity and legal rights that women. While this situation is slowly being balanced inequities will occur. These inequities need to be fixed so that the pendulum of sexism, prejudice, doesn't swing to far to one side but rest in the middle where true justice and equality lives. April Joy (also known as Kellas Cat on several discussion boards) Some Favorite Quotes: (quotes, I love them quotes) "We, and all others who believe in freedom as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees." - Franklin D. Roosevelt "Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason." - Oscar Wilde "I prefer liberty to chains of diamonds." - Lady Mary Wortley Montagu "A man on a date wonders if he'll get lucky. The woman already knows." - Monica Piper "People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." - Rebecca West "If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle." - Rita Mae Brown "Whenever people say "we mustn't be sentimental", you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add, "we must be realistic", they mean they are going to make money out of it." Brigid Brophy "Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority." Doctor Who "Nothing is so strong as gentleness, and nothing is so gentle as true strength." - Ralph Sockman Break the legs of an evil custom. -- Italian Proverb From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:58:23 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Angels and Ufos are epi-phenomenon of earthquakes and the brain Message-ID: <199612162058.NAA08289@snowden.micron.net> Keith wrote: >I think we are on the verge of a real merger of science and spirituality. >Both sides will have to give a little and take a little. Don't you think? The "life on Mars" discovery is already causing some uncomfortable shifting and shuffling within some religious faiths. It will be interesting to see what the "new" doctrines will be as the result of this merging. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:04:45 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: House of cards reply Message-ID: <9612162204.AA15985@toto.csustan.edu> KPJ >JHE quoted TM in a post about the Caldwell piece, but I had >never seen TM's (Tim Maroney?) original post which for some >reason didn't come in a digest. Can anyone forward it to me? JHE Yes, Tom Marony originated the post. You already have it, because I reposted his entire comment. KPJ >One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's >publicity for his piece is his claim that he has prepared an >"in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of >Johnson." What thesis? There are 32 people nominated as HPB's >Masters in TMR, and Caldwell devoted the entirety of his 42 page >argument to attacking my case for two of them. So his >"debunking" attempt is in fact focused on two hypotheses only, >and he doesn't even state what "the thesis of Johnson" >is. JHE Critical essays on books, or even short pieces always limit their comments to a very few aspects of a given work. The reason is obvious. It took Caldwell months of research and 42 pages to discuss two people in your book. At that rate, for him to discuss the other thirty would take volumes and years to write. KPJ >JHE asks "Are we reasonably to expect any more than this?" >after agreeing with TM that Mr. Caldwell's language and >attitude are snide, personal, rabid, etc. My answer is yes, >indeed, we have a right to expect criticism of books that is >neither snide, personal nor rabid in tone. Certainly I have not >seen any such level of hostility directed at any other author >in my 18 years of Theosophical membership, so I imagined that I >had a right to expect it not to be targeted at me. John Algeo >disabused me of that delusion (his TH review being much more in >the snide pejorative category than his AT one). JHE My point was that I believe the tone of Caldwell's critical essay was within the normal limits of what is being published today. My opinion is based upon my experience over the past several years of daily reading books and articles of literary criticism and rhetoric. Perhaps you are right--Theosophists should be more restrained in their writing than the rest of the literary community, but obviously they are not. John Algeo is a very well known and established scholar, a retired professor, and an authority in linguistics and English Literature. Over the years, he and has published many critical articles in refereed literary journals, published a literary journal of his own, was a member of the committee that developed the MLA guidelines used in academic writing, and published a lead historical article on the development of the English language in a major dictionary. I assure you that Algeo's review of your book was professionally written and within normal limits concerning its pejorative tone. KPJ >As in the case of Dr. Algeo, I have tried to make my response a >model of the tone of discourse that Theosophists *should* have a >right to expect. That is, free of personal insults and appeals >to authority, addressing one's opponent in a respectful and >patient manner, dealing with the issues at hand thoroughly >within the limits of reasonable length. JHE Good for you! Now Theosophists have a model of what you believe to be the proper tone of a critical article. Let's see if they follow your example, or if they continue to follow the norms. But my experience with Theosophists is that like most people, they don't take very kindly to people telling them what they "*should*" do. Actually, the only thing I see to be unusual about the circumstances surrounding the publication of your book has been the extraordinary efforts you have made to defend it and to criticize others who have been critical of it. It is hardly typical behavior for authors to carry on public debates with their critics. Rather, they embrace both the critical and the friendly reviews in the joyful knowledge that their book is being read and debated. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:06:18 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <9612162206.AA16137@toto.csustan.edu> TR >I have no information on which to base a definite opinion about >any specifics of the "Wheaton oligarchy" except that I >personally think very highly of one of the ex-national officers >who is a member of my lodge, JHE Well, I guess I was not sufficiently explicit when I used the term "Wheaton Oligarchy." I doubt that if I were to name names, they would have much meaning to most of the people on theos-l, but for the record, here goes: The people I have in mind do not necessarily sit on the National Board, though all of them have at one time or another. Further, those who are elected to the National Board are not necessarily a member of this exclusive group, though this group has a lot of influence as to who does. I have been a member of the TS since 1963 and have known many of them, but most are now dead--E.G.: Ann Green, Fritz Kunz, the Sellons, Anita Wild, the Laytons etc. Those who are still living include: Willamay Pym, Dora Kunz, Joy Mills and Austin Bee. New comers to the circle include John Algeo and Betty Bland. I am not suggesting that any of the above named are or were awful people--only that they are very powerful influences in the Wheaton TS. I personally get along with most of the above people and I'm even rather fond of one or two. TR >but I do not see any necessary problem in their publishing some >books and not others. They have to draw the line somewhere. >Should they publish "Mein Kampf?" Or does this imply a >misunderstanding of the degree to which they censor material >which is clearly relevant to Theosophy? Krishnamurti has been a >controversial subject within the TS, but we have his books in >our library and we discuss his ideas at our meetings. From what >I have seen, they should be _more_ selective about their >material, not less. JHE Actually my statement was not really addressing the issue of selecting books for TPH, though that issue is also related. I was only pointing out that the choices that are made, are made by people who are operating from certain agendas. I am more interested in the agendas than the choices. As for "Mein Kampf," I haven't the slightest doubt that it will not be chosen. As for censorship--yes this is also related to my thought. TPH has edited and censored publications as a matter of course since early in this century. I think that was has been censored and the reasons for the censorship are issues that would make for worthwhile exploration. As for Krishhnamurti, whether or not members read Krishnamurti is hardly an issue of controversy. TS Presidents in the past have embraced him, some have ignored him, but none (as far as I know) have ever renounced him. TR >I cannot imagine what motive anyone in the TS would have for >wanting to use their power to suppress alternative opinions, >except that the material is considered harmful to Theosophy. Is >it a personal battle? JHE Past experience has taught me that if the above question has to be asked, then there is no answer that I have been able to give that would have much meaning. I find that members usually eventually learn the answers to the above questions and do one of four things: drop out of the TS; pretend it isn't true; fight the system and become marginalized; or become a part of the problem. JHE > Therefore, I'm also in favor of the dissent, but lets focus > these controversies to trying to figure out what is going on. > Every person has a unique point of view and each of us holds a > piece of the puzzle. JRC I'd be most interested in a discussion if you'd care to offer a couple of topics ... I'm not versed enough in TS history to start a discussion, but could you, for instance, mention some aspect of doctrine into which distortion was introduced ... and perhaps even trace the development of the distortion over time? JHE Oh there are so many that still affect the policies of the TS. The Judge Case (1895) and the Krishnamurti resignation (1930) are very important in understanding why the TS is the way that it is- -not to mention the topic of the founding and historical development of the ES. MKR >Do you know we even have one person on the Board of Directors >who has *the* unique position of suing Krishnamurti (yes K was >sued by this person and few others) ? Of course very few people >know about it, and it is even possible you may have met this >person. JHE I met his wife some 15 or 20 years ago, but not him. AEB > Essentially, it's about a large organization, who had control > over their communications for a long time and became very upset > that individuals in the organization could establish a mailing > list and discuss issues that they felt shouldn't be aired. JHE Yes. That has happened several times in the TS too. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 14:32:36 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Caldwell's attack on Johnson Message-ID: <199612162233.OAA08878@scv3.apple.com> >>JHE quoted TM in a post about the Caldwell piece, but I had >>never seen TM's (Tim Maroney?) original post which for some >>reason didn't come in a digest. Can anyone forward it to me? >JHE >Yes, Tom Marony originated the post. You already have it, >because I reposted his entire comment. That's Tim Maroney, thanks. I am curious as to why you took a message from Theos-Roots and reposted it on Theos-L? Theos-Roots is where most of the discussion is taking place, and it seems much more appropriate there. I am also curious as to why Paul is not apparently on Theos-Roots, since he didn't see my message. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:47:29 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <961216174726_908306487@emout16.mail.aol.com> Ann, There is certainly a psychic energy exchange aspect to S/M so one can say there is a spiritual dimension to it. And one hears a lot of spiritual language associated with it, such as "transcendence" and out of body experience. It causes one to wonder what REALLY went on between HPB and the Colonel. :) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:48:12 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: <961216174812_776451119@emout19.mail.aol.com> But we must never forget that people who listen to violins are spiritually far superior to those who listen to *gasp* guitars. :) Chuck the Ducking Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 15:34:22 -0800 (PST) From: James S Yungkans Subject: Evolution of Matter Message-ID: <199612162334.PAA02995@sure.net> In searching for newer examples of a "theosophical" model for Cosmognenesis I came across the writings of D.S.Mahalanobis in the Indian journal "Ananda Varta." The model he presents is of the following nature: (7) Avyakta : "Unmanifested Primordial Stuff" (Mulaprakriti?) (6) Akasa-1 : "Non-Atomic Matter" or Aether This matter is energized by Parispanda (PARanIShPANna?) and, by combining with this force, creates Akasa-2. Parispanda is defined as "a whirling or rotary motion potentially inherent in Akasa. (5) Akasa-2 (Kinetic) : Ether, associated with Sabda ('Sound' principle) This form of matter is said to manifest itself as Sabda (or Sound principle. To quote Mahalobis "All that happens in this first phase of evolution is that Parispanda, energized out of it's state of equilibrium (or Laya?), creates an atomic field in the original space continuum, to serve as the base for future evolution. This atomic base is the finite cosmic space that we know... Now, what is this 'sound'? And how can it be the property of Akasa. This 'sound' is not what we hear, nor is akasa, original or derivative the same that we call sky or the stary heaven. Sabda is the basic sound due to the circular motion of Parispanda in the original akasa which is thus made cognizable as akasa-2 in this area of parispandic activity...all such motion, to [the ancients] were sounds...they reserved the name sabda, 'sound' for the most refined category, i.e. the oroginal sound associated with akasa-2; the rest are sounds too, but a modes of the original. They are secondary sounds. The difference should be noted, between out conception of sound and that of the ancients." (4) Vayu (Tactile/Tangential) : AIR, associated with Sparsa ('Contact' principle) This is described as having linear motion, compared to the rotational motion of akasa. "Vayu, from Va (to blow) literally means that which blows...The term vayu resresents non-periodic motion energy and not air, a mechanical mixture of gasses, as is often supposed...it is kinetic energy that drives air in it's course. Tactile energy is subtler even than light; it is evolved as an earlier product and is one grade more rarified." (3) Tejas (Vibrational) : FIRE, associated with Rupa ('Luminosity' principle) "It is the energy of Heat and Light..Vibration is a periodic motion but it is not called kinetic by the ancients since, according to them, it is a different energy energy." This appears to be a "Spiral" form of motion which if viewed in 2 dimensions, and viewed along it's axis, would present a "wave-like" appearance. (2) Ap (Differential) : WATER, associated with Rasa ('Affinity' principle) Defined as "Attraction and Repulsion (ref Bailey's attraction/repulsion law?) Mahalanopis states "Ap at bottom is the urge of new creation. This urge comes from Rasa, 'afinity', which is the dominant constituent in Ap." (1) Kshiti (Matter) : EARTH, Associated with Gandha ('Gravitation') this is the final form defined in the model. "Matter being nothing but congealed radiation travelling at less than normal speed...bottled up waves, which we call matter, and unbottled waves, which we call radiation" The above model appears to agree somewhat with the sequence presented by HPB in SD1 Stanza III:8 the Germ is THAT and THAT is LIGHT... III:9 LIGHT is Cold flame (Rupa:Luminosity) and flame is Fire (Tejas) which produces Heat (Vibration) which yealds water (Ap) Has anyone seen this model in other literature, and where would one find it. The materials I'm working from date to 1965-1967. Any information would be helpful. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:28:44 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Masters and the Path Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961217012844.00693f68@mail.eden.com> Here is another example of prompt help from Elisabeth Trumpler. I note that the editions referred to are the abridged ones. Does any one know what were the items removed/condensed when the abridgement was done? It would be interesting info for serious students. MKR At 11:10 AM 12/16/96 -0500, you wrote: >A quick check with the Theosophical Publishing House shows that several >copies of THE MASTERS AND THE PATH (paperback) are in stock here at >Wheaton, and a shipment from India is on its way. > >The new TPH Adyar catalog (1996) lists both a hardcover and softcover >edition, and as far as we know, there are no plans to let it go out of print. > >The edition currently published is an abridged version. > >THE SCIENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS is also listed in the catalog of both TPH >Adyar and Quest Books. > >Elisabeth Trumpler >Olcott Library > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > >> On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: >> >> > ---------- >> > > From: m.k. ramadoss >> > > >> > > I just found out that the book is out of print. Does it indicate any >> > > trend in the direction of the philosophy that Adyar want to steer TS >> > > into? >> > > >> > > Just a topic to speculate. >> > >> > I ordered a copy last fall and when it was delivered there >> > was a note enclosed that said it was the last one in their >> > warehouse. >> > >> > Does this mean it's some kind of collector's item now? >> > What about The Science and The Sacraments? >> > >> > -Ann E. Bermingham >> >> Glad you got the last copy. It is a book in my small but selective >> collection. May become a collector's item. >> >> The Science of Sacraments, I vaguely recall Health Research publishing it. >> >> MKr >> > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:29:11 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Karma Theory Message-ID: <199612170130.UAA28847@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > This is how I believe karma was meant to be understood. In my understanding > of esoteric philosophy, there is nothing that is "personal". The teaching was > that your thoughts and actions affected ALL of humanity, including yourself, > and in order to keep bad things from happening to yourself and everyone else > (and everything), you were advised to do "good deeds" in order to make "good > ripples" which would in turn touch others and influence their actions in a > positive manner. I agree with you, John. If one writes a story, one finds that the actions of one character always effects everyone else in the story. Even if the writer changes their age or the color of their hair, it send out ripples into the whole writing piece. I believe that the vibes we carry around or put out also effect other people. So we can be responsible for putting others into a bad mood or making their day a little brighter. Just my 2 pence. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:42:00 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: house of cards Message-ID: <9612170142.AA28960@toto.csustan.edu> TM >I am curious as to why you took a message from Theos-Roots and >reposted it on Theos-L? Theos-Roots is where most of the >discussion is taking place, and it seems much more appropriate >there. I am also curious as to why Paul is not apparently on >Theos-Roots, since he didn't see my message. > >Tim Maroney JHE Carelessness on my part. Also, I'm using a very ancient communications software that was already obsolete when I began using it ten years ago. Therefore all of the messages look pretty much the same regardless of their origin, and I don't have any sorting options. Usually I take the time to figure out whether the message came from "roots" or "news" etc. and post a reply accordingly, but lately I have been too busy to even attempt to read 90% of the messages that have come through--let alone figure their origins. However, thanks for informing me, and I will be happy to post any further discussion on "roots." Also--I stand corrected on the spelling of your name. Sorry. As for Paul, every few months he announces that he is signing off of theos-xxxx and then later signs back on. So, I have learned not to assume that he gets all of the messages that might concern him. Probably it would be best to cc to his address if you specifically want him to see a post.: pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 19:01:28 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > JRC > I'd be most interested in a discussion if you'd care to offer a > couple of topics ... I'm not versed enough in TS history to start > a discussion, but could you, for instance, mention some aspect of > doctrine into which distortion was introduced ... and perhaps > even trace the development of the distortion over time? > > JHE > -not to mention the topic of the founding and historical > development of the ES. > I would very much like to hear a bit more about this one, if you've got the time .... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:15:01 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Questions on Karma Message-ID: <32B61035.49BC@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Tom wrote: > > >3) Is there good and bad karma, or just karma? > > I guess I think there is "just karma," which, I must say, BY ITSELF, > certainly seems pointless, almost bordering on cruelty. We create karma by -- chunk deleted for brevity -- > Karma's a handy little tool, but it doesn't seem to work for all > construction jobs. I see karma as the agent that separates Unity. When there is no karma, Unity is restored. At a certain level of evolution, we can perceive karma, and avoid creating personal karma much the same way one avoids a truck while crossing a street. Until then, the only clue that we have is that the way to avoid creating personal karma is to avoid acting personally. In the meantime, karma acts as an instructor; if we get hit by enough of it, we start to perceive how it works. Short-term karma (if you hit someone, they're likely to hit you back) is easier to learn to avoid than longer-term karma (if you eat too much, you'll gain weight), which is easier to learn to avoid than multi-lifetime karma. Karma from "evil" deeds does not necessarily come back as evil, and karma from "good" deeds does not necessarily come back as good. Theoretically, divination methods such as Astrology, Tarot or I Ching can help us determine the effects of karma, IF we could figure out how to work them... From what has been written about it by people who claim to know, the best way to deal with karma is to ignore it; just do the right thing, and hope for the best. Note that the fact that an action that releases someone from a great deal of karmic debt is not at all justified by that release; you cannot justify actions against a person merely because he or she "deserves" it. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:21:42 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Questions on Karma Message-ID: <32B611C6.2BF3@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > I have never understood how the actions of past lives directly cause present > circumstances. Rather than a direct link, it is more likely analogous to a > bank account, in which the benefits of using a specific withdrawal is not > directly tied to any specific deposit, but is drawn from a common pool. It > is even more likely analogous to the results of flipping a coin many times, > where the average will approach half heads and half tails, the results of > any one flip are almost completely independent of such probability, and a > result of heads does not cause a later result of tails. If one considers one's past lives to be unrelated to one's present life, just as a new coin toss is unrelated to an old coin toss, then your confusion is warranted. If, however, you look at the universe as a Unity, and the separation is just one view of it, then it becomes clearer that, just like if you pinch one hand with another you feel it with your brain, that all actions have consequences that eventually reach everybody, yourself included. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:30:17 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Identity of April Joy, and Sexism Message-ID: <32B613C9.A40@sprynet.com> April Joy wrote: > > To Bart Lidosfsky regarding misquote: > I must apologize to Bart Lidosfsky as my reply to Tom Robertson's Accepted, and thank you. Are you any relation to Beverly Joy (old member of New York Theosophical Society)? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:36:08 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: house of cards Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > TM > >I am curious as to why you took a message from Theos-Roots and > >reposted it on Theos-L? Theos-Roots is where most of the > >discussion is taking place, and it seems much more appropriate > >there. I am also curious as to why Paul is not apparently on > >Theos-Roots, since he didn't see my message. > > > >Tim Maroney > > JHE > Carelessness on my part. Also, I'm using a very ancient MKR: I would rather see messages duplicated than miss a message. When I saw your message, I did not even notice from which list it came from until I saw Tim's message. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:37:36 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <32B61580.20B2@sprynet.com> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > them, but most are now dead--E.G.: Ann Green, Fritz Kunz, the > Sellons, Anita Wild, the Laytons etc. Those who are still living > include: Willamay Pym, Dora Kunz, Joy Mills and Austin Bee. Either John Sellon is still alive or my wife had lunch with a corpse a couple of weeks ago (and a still very sharp corpse, at that). Michael Sellon never lost his interest in the Society, and Peter Sellon is getting more involved. > -not to mention the topic of the founding and historical > development of the ES. In my opinion, the ES should be exactly what it was supposed to be in the first place, according to the person writing as K.H. (who may have actually been K.H.): A special section of the TS for people who wanted to live exclusively by the tenets of the Mahatmas, as opposed to people who wished to reach the Truth through their own religion (as everybody must do, according to the same letter). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Dec 17 00:05:41 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <199612170505.AAA14989@envirolink.org> m.k. ramadoss writes: >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: >> what the "tee hee" behind my back is all about. What amazes me is that >>most Theosophists whom I know personally also lean left. I would think >>that a philosophy which so heavily emphasizes individual growth and >>independence from authority would attract more righties than lefties. > > I was thrilled to see your comment. The moment Theosophy really >touches someone, it appears that the fundamental proposition of helping >"the orphan Humanity" -- ie. all the human beings with whom we come into >contact and those who are affected by our actions -- biases our actions >towards the general welfare than concentration on activities that >enhances one's wealth etc. In that process there is a very dramatic thing >happens -- one becomes more independent in thinking and also outspoken >and intolerant when one seen injustice to the "little guy/gal". This is >my reading; there may be others who disagree. If so , so be it. > >mkr I definitely mised something. Could someone define "right" and "left" for me really quick? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:10:26 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > In my opinion, the ES should be exactly what it was supposed to be in > the first place, according to the person writing as K.H. (who may have > actually been K.H.): A special section of the TS for people who wanted > to live exclusively by the tenets of the Mahatmas, as opposed to people > who wished to reach the Truth through their own religion (as everybody > must do, according to the same letter). > > Bart Lidofsky In my view, if it is a question of anyone wanting to live by the tenets of the Mahatmas, it is the most laudable practical objective. However, when TSA organizational/ administrative matters and decisions lead to action being taken on a member of the ES, then this linkage creates questions -- the one typical case we all know (courtesy of theos-l) was the Gerda incident. MKR ****There is No Religion Higher Than Truth****** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Dec 17 00:18:28 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Tom Robertson? Alan Bain? Message-ID: <199612170518.AAA15740@envirolink.org> Mark Kusek writes: >Keith: No, I am Alan's evil twin and your evil twin, in fact we are >septuplets - seven you know! Forgive me, I'm still sick! :) Happy >holidays! > >TTT: I want to be Alan's evil twin, too! In fact, I'm sure the Triaist >would wish Alan change him into his evil twin, too. It must be no fun >being a carrot. We can have an army of Toms. I think Mark is >channeling April Joy in his spare time. S=o) Actually, I'm getting quite used to this carrot thing. As long as I believe that I am a carrot, I don't have a care in the world. The only problem is that I've started having this terrible fear of rabbits and farmers. *shiver* --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:32:03 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <199612170532.WAA23378@snowden.micron.net> The Triaist wrote: >I definitely mised something. Could someone define "right" and "left" for me >really quick? When I said "left," I meant left of the political spectrum, as in liberal. I think Tom was responding in the same vein, right being conservative. Hope that clarifies. . . :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 10:10:26 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Reply to JHE re criticism Message-ID: <199612171510.KAA18036@leo.vsla.edu> Dear Jerry, I'm back on theos-roots for a week before signing off all lists to revise my Cayce manuscript for the next several months. By inadvertently posting roots material on theos-l, you pulled me back into the debate with Daniel Caldwell, which I did not wish to pursue beyond my to-be-published reply. But actually, it is your comments to which I wish to respond rather than his or Tim's. I had commented that Daniel was publicizing his piece as "debunking the thesis of Johnson," when in fact he was attacking just two out of 32 proposed identifications of Masters, and did not even identify "the thesis" he was allegedly debunking. You replied that "It took Caldwell months of research and 42 pages to discuss two people in your book. At that rate, for him to discuss the other thirty would take volumes and years to write." Since some of the material in *House of Cards* first appeared in a letter I received from him in April 1993, the number of months we are speaking of here is something like 42, which comes out to one page per month. But that is beside the point; my intention was not to suggest that he should have attacked all 32 (God forbid, but it may happen) but rather that he was making wildly excessive claims for his work. As to Tim's comment, seconded by me, that the tone of Caldwell's essay is inappropriately personal, snide, rabid, etc., you replied that you "believe the tone... was within the normal limits of what is being published today" based on the experience of reading books and articles of literary criticism. Then you went on to praise John Algeo as a respected scholar who has published widely, and "assure" me that his review of my book was "professionally written and within normal limits concerning its pejorative tone." My career for the past twenty years has involved daily reading of book reviews, as a basis for deciding what to buy for the library. That works about to about 100,000 reviews read at work, not just in short-review media like Library Journal but also in places like the New York Times Book Review. Add to that every review in Theosophical magazines, Gnosis, and so on. I have *never* seen a review comparable in tone to Daniel's essay as best I can recall, except for Mark Jaqua's self-published magazine. (Guess who the lucky target of that one was!) As for Algeo's I'll have to take your word for it that English professors are always so nasty among themselves. His TH review of TMR was in the top 1% for long-windedness and hostility among all that I ever read. But I suggest that you are placing these events in the wrong context in order to minimize their severity. What we have here are attacks by Theosophists on another Theosophist whose intentions were basically friendly. Questions for you as a historian: 1. Has any national president of the TSA ever published a 15 page attack on a book by a member of his section? On any book at all? 2. Has the *Theosophist* ever run a non-review, in which a book's title is used as the article title, but the book itself is never mentioned, although the article's author is clearly attacking the book indirectly? If this has ever been done before, was the attacked author a member? 2. Has any Theosophical book in the last 50 years been attacked as ferociously and longwindedly as mine by Algeo and Caldwell? It is the inappropriateness of their attacks within the context of Theosophical values and claims of openness that strikes me most. You write that you doubt that Theosophists will follow the example I have tried to set in answers to Algeo and Caldwell (free of personal insults and appeals to authority, respectful and patient tone, dealing with issues thoroughly but at reasonable length) and expect that they will continue to follow "the norms." THE norms? What norms? There were norms of civility in discourse that I had seen observed for 17 years in Theosophical publications before my books came along, and suddenly they are meaningless. The norms followed/exemplified by Algeo and Caldwell may strike you as just fine, but they have not been the governing norms in Theosophical writing. If I had *ever* seen *any* author, Theosophist or not, attacked by a TS official the way Algeo did me, before joining the TS, I would never have wanted to belong to it in the first place. In your conclusion, you write: "Actually, the only thing I see to be unusual about the circumstances surrounding publication of your book has been the extraordinary efforts you have made to defend it and to criticize others who have been critical of it. It is hardly typical behavior for authors to carry on public debates with their critics." Extraordinary efforts? All I did was let myself get sucked into a week or two's worth of back-and-forth arguments with Caldwell, in late 1993 or early 1994, before deciding this was not worth my time and effort. Later, at your request I think, I did the same thing with you about one aspect of my work for a week or so. The Internet has certainly made authors a lot more accessible to their critics, so what you call "typical behavior," if based on print media, is anachronistic (ALAS!). You criticized me back then for not giving Caldwell carte blanche, answering every challenge and complaint until he ran out, even if it took months. Now you blame me for "extraordinary efforts" to do what you once blamed me for not doing enough of. Apart from those brief mistaken forays into debates (debates that you implied I had a moral responsibility to engage in for the good of Theosophical scholarship), I haven't debated my critics publicly. It is *absolutely* typical behavior for authors to *answer* their critics, as I have with Algeo, Crews and now Caldwell. Look at the *New York Review of Books* or the Times Book Review or any other literary rag and you will see that authors answering their critics is "the norm" to use your phrase. Debate? I'm not interested. In fact, I offered to let Daniel have my reply to him to put on his website, with the condition that this be the end of discussion. If he wants to answer my answer, challenge me to explain more things, generally continue to harass me as he has off and on for years-- forget it. I have better things to do. He refused this condition, apparently *will* answer my response, but I won't get sucked into any more exchanges with him. You conclude "Rather, they embrace both the critical and the friendly reviews in the joyful knowledge that their book is being read and debated." I might be joyful about the reception of my books if the attackers were a bunch of strangers, and the praise came from people I had invested 17 years of my life in. But when it's the other way around, can't you see that circumstances affect response? If I could have simply said "To hell with them, they're just silly Theosophists" the amount of pain in my lifetime would have been drastically lessened. But having acquired the illusion that this movement was one without fixed dogmas, open to new ideas, and devoted to discussing them in an atmosphere of mutual respect, I was motivated to struggle to *make* those things a reality when it became clear that they were *not.* Quite a waste of time and energy, but perhaps there has been a karmic recompense for it all. Jerry, your theme song about me has been "there is no problem with any of your critics, the only problem is with you and your books." When I announced that I was writing about Cayce, you said something like "Well, we'll just see if you get along any better with the ARE than the TS"-- clearly implying that you placed all the blame for my painful experiences with the TS on my own shoulders, and predicted more of the same with the new book. How could things be different with the ARE, since the whole problem was my [scholarly ineptitude, neurosis, argumentativeness] whatever bad traits you consistently blame me for? Well, here's some news I've been reluctant to post, for fear of sounding "Nya na na na nah." I interviewed Charles Thomas Cayce in August, and just got a phone call from him last week. In our half-hour talk, he said he was "just very excited" by my manuscript, which he had read as a reader for SUNY. He told me that his column in the next Venture Inward would be devoted to informing members about new scholarly approaches to Cayce, including my own book and two other writers he had met recently. In his end of year letter to members, he listed 11 highlights of 1996. One was working in the Edgar Cayce Foundation with "an author whose book on the life and work of Edgar Cayce will appear in the SUNY Press series on Western Esoteric Traditions." And when the book is about to come out, it will get some sort of sendoff in one of the magazines. You might think, "Surely this new book is less controversial and critical than his other ones." Not so. This will be the most skeptical, critical look at Cayce ever published-- and yet folks at ARE aren't scared, or mad, but delighted. They are enthusiastic about the burgeoning of scholarly interest in Cayce, and accept my work as a harbinger of future developments. What this tells me is that there *are* spiritual groups that don't share what you as a Theosophist call "the norm." Maybe you have gotten so accustomed to the ugly features of Theosophical culture that you have become completely cynical. Even when you see someone who was once a friend getting attacked and ostracized in a most untheosophical manner, the most compassionate response you can come up with is "Serves you right, should have known better." Well, now I do. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:04:38 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Sexism Message-ID: <19961217090427.AAA22281@LOCALNAME> Tom Robertson wrote: >>I find it interesting how a man can write an article saying that he believes that men >>and women are basically equal and then mentions one way in which he believes >>men are superior, and that a woman can write an article in response saying that men >>and women are basically equal, and then mentions 23 ways that she considers >>women to be superior, and the same man, responding to both, can call the male >>author a "sexist bastard" and call the post of the female author "brilliant." April Joy wrote: >At what point in my initial reply to you did I say women were superior? >I do not believe either gender is superior. Which 23 criticisms of women do you have? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 8:47:36 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Off and on Message-ID: <199612171347.IAA09391@leo.vsla.edu> In a reply to Tim Maroney, JHE describes me as announcing every few months that I'm leaving the list, and then signing back on. This is characteristically distorted in an unflattering direction. The last time I signed off theos-l, it was specifically to concentrate on writing my Cayce ms.; that was about a year ago and I returned in the spring when the first draft was done. The time before that was about a year before, to work on Initiates; the time before that, TMR required all my attention. That makes three times off and on the list since first signing on three years ago. (There may have been other brief signoffs for vacations, etc. but only these long absences.) Each time I made it clear that I was doing so to concentrate on work. Now it's time to do so again; as of next Monday I will sign off to concentrate on the final revision of Edgar Cayce in Context, and not return until the ms. is in production, maybe April. As for theos-roots, I unsubscribed to it about three years ago and haven't been back since except for a day or two here and there when someone told me there was something to see. It has been three years now since Daniel Caldwell started attacking/ interrogating me on theos-l, and people got disgusted with the back-and-forth as I responded with defenses, each of which generated ten new objections from Hydra/Daniel. Someone suggested "Take it to theos-roots." Daniel went there with his attacks, and I did not follow him with my defenses-- so don't know what has been said about me there since. JHE comments, in a post I will answer in full on theos-roots, that there is nothing out of the ordinary about Caldwell's attacks on my work, or Algeo's; the only thing blameworthy is my being offended and responding rather than ignoring it. This from the same man who previously blamed me for *not* replying to Caldwell on the list indefinitely, as long as he felt like continuing to attack. With some people, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:51:25 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 759 Message-ID: Hi MKR, I'd just like to add to your responses with respest to brotherhood if I may. Firstly, I would say that T/theosophy is the set of principles and laws which describe the nature of the Life, the quality, and the appearance of things both manifest and unmanifest, laid down by those who are initiates of the 6th and higher degrees who try to help humanity understand the nature of the Self. Whilst it might not be an exact representation of the Truth,it is adequate for future growth until such time as the disciple KNOWS and, possibly more importantly,can take responsibility for That Truth - or should I say gnows (from the old English gnowen meaning to intuitively know).I would humbly suggest that the study of T/theosophy is characterised by the 2nd and 3rd intentions of the society, and the 1st is like the first ray which fuses the later two to form a nucleus of knowledge which can help complete the plan at the ending the 7th root race.The TS is surely independent of theosophical thought, it is only the medium through wish it may be passed. With respect to your comment on the Path, I wasn't implying that anything was somehow worse, or somehow trying to compare mine or yours,only that the transfusion of personality will naturally have a transition process before one can appreciate our "newness" for want of a better term and there might a time when we are unsure what to believe, even if we have perceived a new aspect of Truth. Namaste'! Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:04:30 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, John Straughn wrote: > >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > >> what the "tee hee" behind my back is all about. What amazes me is that > >>most Theosophists whom I know personally also lean left. I would think > >>that a philosophy which so heavily emphasizes individual growth and > >>independence from authority would attract more righties than lefties. The personal *aspect* of Theosophy emphasizes this ... but that aspect seems (IMO) secondary to the philosophy of altruism and selfless service that is what really differentiates it from a lot of the new age. *Righties*? A society begun by a woman who blasted Christianity, a Buddhist ... will all assortment of liberal thinkers including a radical feminist who was also an animal rights activist - that holds a viewpoint universal in scope and global in its objects? Gee, that sure sounds like Pat Buchannan's platform to me. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 10:29:16 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <199612171628.LAA26392@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC > On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > JRC > > I'd be most interested in a discussion if you'd care to offer a > > couple of topics ... I'm not versed enough in TS history to start > > a discussion, but could you, for instance, mention some aspect of > > doctrine into which distortion was introduced ... and perhaps > > even trace the development of the distortion over time? > > > > JHE > > -not to mention the topic of the founding and historical > > development of the ES. > > > I would very much like to hear a bit more about this one, if > you've got the time .... > -JRC So would I. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 07:38:55 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199612171628.LAA26366@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Mark Kusek > > 3) Is there good and bad karma, or just karma? > I don't know whether there is good or bad karma. However, it seems to > me that you can take actions or inactions that will either slow or speed > up your development, or may degrade some of your developments. As far > as my personal life, all my best friends and lovers have their first > name begin with the letter "M". I didn't think I choose it. Shirley > MacLaine said that whereever she travels, there is always construction > happening in front of her hotel room. What do you make of that? > I would suggest that perhaps there is some type of symbology going on in the outer world that reflects what is happening in one's inner world. Ray Grasse once had a lecture at Olcott where he talked about a friend who suddenly was finding dead birds wherever he went. I've personally experienced being surrounded by a people with a particular sun sign at different times in my life. Right now, I seem to know a lot of Geminis, whereas in college I was hanging out with a lot of Capricorns. I hypothesize that I need that particular energy at that particular time and attract these people to me. Perhaps the letter "M" has some vibrational quality and significance that appeals to you. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 11:38:05 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Alexis Message-ID: <961217113804_641457699@emout15.mail.aol.com> Alexis is a good friend, in spite of the fact that he is extremely opinionated and makes me seem gentle by comparison. It would be unfortunate if this list were to be used to attack someone who is not on it to reply for himself. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:34:15 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Identity of April Joy, and Sexism Message-ID: <32B6D996.467B@withoutwalls.com> April, Your 764 post: Brilliant! Your response to the topic of sexism stated very clearly another aspect of "domination." I also got a good laugh out of your responses to our queries about your existence. It's good to know that we don't have to channel April Joy anymore. S=o) One good thing about reading this list is that I get to see diverse responses, some that had not occurred to me. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 15:37:55 -0500 From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Angels and Ufos are epi-phenomenon of earthquakes and the brain Message-ID: <199612171539_MC1-D44-4C46@compuserve.com> I have gotten some interesting responses privatley regarding the post about eartquakes and geological rock breakage causing "spiritual" and ufo sightings. I think power centers like pyramids and Stonehenge probably have a relationship to this general topic. I think if we really want to discover the power latent in humanity we must be willing to explore in our individual lives and allow scientists to promote hypotheses that may seem "crackpot" to those from a spiritual tradition. I think there are groups that are willing to take the step toward a practical merger of the best of science and technology and the best of the spiritual traditions. I think Hilary Clinton's talking to Eleanor Roosevelt with the help of Jean Houston shows that many in high places are open to non-ordinary investigations. I have said that rather than looking to the past, many are looking to the future that ANCIENT WISDOM foretells. I refuse to be either overly pessimistic in that it is all going to hell in an apocalyptic flame or overly optimistic that we are going to be transformed to a new level of consciousness by this time next year. Hear we are at the winter solstice again and are being allowed another life review, societal review, politcial review etc of the year as a cycle in time. We are in a dark materialistic cycle, but the road winds ever upward according to spiritual teachers in the past. We can use technology to make the karmic trip upward a little smoother. It is going to be a bumpy ride. We are going to have to fasten our planetary seatbelts, we all agree on that. The past cannot be our only guide, we must feel the pull the entelchy, the omega point., the goal just out of reach, shining. Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:38:22 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: LACK OF SCHOLARLY TONE?? PERSONAL SNIDE REMARKS?? THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER?? Message-ID: <199612172038.NAA23463@mailhost.azstarnet.com> LACK OF SCHOLARLY TONE?? PERSONAL SNIDE REMARKS?? THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER?? Tim Maroney in a previous post has written that I have made snide, personal remarks about K. Paul Johnson in my HOUSE OF CARDS paper. He writes of my "attack" on Johnson. And now I see Johnson's latest reply to Jerry HE. All of this is really beside the point which is: do my criticisms of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and K.H. have merit? Does Johnson's thesis on these two Masters fall apart like a "house of cards" in light of my criticisms? But I really wonder if, for example, Tim Maroney is aware that POSSIBLY some of the things he writes doesn't necessarily have a SCHOLARLY/NEUTRAL/FRIENDLY TONE to them? I reproduce BELOW excerpts from a posting Maroney wrote on Geoffrey Barborka's THE MAHATMAS AND THEIR LETTERS. Could some of his comments about Barborka be viewed as "personal attack" or "negative" or "snide"? Do these comments reflect negatively on Barborka? Do these comments, in effect, make "fun" of Barborka, of his "gullibility", of his "naivete"? "Barborka seems to delight...." "credulously recounted [by Barborka]" "Barborka is very impressed...." "Probably the most embarassing passage is. . .where Barborka breathlessly asks. . . ." See fuller excerpts appended at the end of my comments. What if I had used Maroney's choice phrases on Johnson? Would Maroney or Johnson have criticized me for such language? Would Maroney, Johnson, Bain, or Crocker have complained about MY tone if I had written: "...Johnson almost seems to delight in ignoring the contrary evidence to his position or thesis"? I am not trying to create more "negativity" on Theos-l and Theos-Roots. I have no desire to carry on any further "argument" with Johnson, Maroney or any one else on these side issues. Such arguments lead nowhere. But I do believe there is some truth in the saying that goes: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." (Is that the correct wording?) I also believe the ISSUES about Blavatsky and the Mahatmas raised by Johnson, Maroney and myself need to be seriously addressed and discussed. Unfortunately, such a discussion may not take place on Theos-l or Theos-Roots in the near future. Daniel Caldwell >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 23:04:29 -0800 >From: Tim Maroney >To: >Subject: Barborka: "The Mahatmas and Their Letters" >........... >. . . .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. . . . >The famous Sinnett brooch incident is credulously recounted [by Barborka] >but the reader finds not one word about the major contrary detail . . . . >Barborka is very impressed by the spiritualistic "raps" which Blavatsky >could produce at will.... Wasn't it the Fox sisters who made their raps by secretly >cracking their toe knuckles. . . .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. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 19:20:57 EST From: chadsdad2@juno.com (Charles Davis) Subject: THEOS-L digests Message-ID: <19961216.181338.10183.13.chadsdad2@juno.com> CHADSDAD2@JUNO.COM From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 21:31:07 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <32B7576B.1CA4@sprynet.com> John Straughn wrote: > I definitely mised something. Could someone define "right" and "left" for me > really quick? The right wing believes that the rich and powerful should control your actions, while the left wing believes that the state should control your actions. Note the same result, regardless. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:04:51 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: Isn't that duckling? (grin) -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:07:33 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: > > Ann, > There is certainly a psychic energy exchange aspect to S/M so one can say > there is a spiritual dimension to it. And one hears a lot of spiritual > language associated with it, such as "transcendence" and out of body > experience. > It causes one to wonder what REALLY went on between HPB and the Colonel. :) > > Chuck the Heretic > How true Chuck. Shaking my head... never thought I'd agree with another on this list! Gertrude the Spiritual Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:38:02 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: <961218003801_1820441254@emout17.mail.aol.com> No, but I'm going to enjoy watching someone's goose get cooked saturday. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:40:20 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <961218004018_1425279473@emout18.mail.aol.com> Gertie, Don't shake it too hard. Remember the last time you did and your brain fell out and we had a terrible time looking for it with that HUGE magnifying glass. Chuck the Sadistic Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:26:07 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <199612180626.XAA11385@snowden.micron.net> Bart wrote: > The right wing believes that the rich and powerful should control your >actions, while the left wing believes that the state should control your >actions. Note the same result, regardless. Wrong-O, Bart. The result isn't the same, since the left and the right want to control different "actions." Despite some schizophrenic overlapping, at their core, they are two different philosophies, two different outlooks, two different views of humanity. . .hence different results. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:32:09 -0500 From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 766 Message-ID: <961218013209_776749042@emout10.mail.aol.com> A further clarification between Left and Right: The Left espouses a totalitarian, ideological one-party state, the conformity of the the mass media, the glorification of the majority and an elitism (as in the vanguard of the proletariat). This leads to the usual leftist utopian vision of the ant hill. The Right embraces freedom, as in free enterprise, private property, personal independence, a respect for tradition and the primacy of the individual (as versus the collective). We evolved from a homogeneous state (mulaprakriti), working our way through the Elemental, the Mineral, the Vegetable, Animal Kingdoms to finally achieve individuality and self-consciousness. The Left would have us return to an amorphous collectivism, a One World "Group Soul" type of consciousness, a condition from which we we have striven so hard to emerge in the course of Evolution. LMH III From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:43:48 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Crimes of the Left Message-ID: <19961218074336.AAA27390@LOCALNAME> At 06:27 AM 12/18/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Bart wrote: > >> The right wing believes that the rich and powerful should control your >>actions, while the left wing believes that the state should control your >>actions. Note the same result, regardless. > >Wrong-O, Bart. The result isn't the same, since the left and the right want >to control different "actions." Despite some schizophrenic overlapping, at >their core, they are two different philosophies, two different outlooks, two >different views of humanity. . .hence different results. > > >Kym > > The virtues of the right are freedom and self-sufficiency. The virtues of the left are compassion and security. The optimal society is a mixture of the two. There is no such thing as a society in which some people do not have power over others. Power is good. Only its abuse is evil. It takes the same power to do good as it does to do evil. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 23:46:44 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: poetic response Message-ID: <32B7A10A.340C@withoutwalls.com> > John Straughn wrote: > I definitely mised something. Could someone define "right" and "left" for me > really quick? >Bart replys: >The right wing believes that the rich and powerful should control your >actions, while the left wing believes that the state should control your >actions. Note the same result, regardless. WithoutWalls waxes: Left wing over here... Right wing over there... Bird have to walk. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 07:53:53 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Individuality Message-ID: <19961218075340.AAA29711@LOCALNAME> At 06:33 AM 12/18/96 +0000, Lmhem111@aol.com wrote: >A further clarification between Left and Right: > >The Left espouses a totalitarian, ideological one-party state, the conformity >of the >the mass media, the glorification of the majority and an elitism (as in the >vanguard >of the proletariat). This leads to the usual leftist utopian vision of the >ant hill. >The Right embraces freedom, as in free enterprise, private property, personal >independence, a respect for tradition and the primacy of the individual >(as versus the collective). > >We evolved from a homogeneous state (mulaprakriti), working our way through >the Elemental, the Mineral, the Vegetable, Animal Kingdoms to finally achieve >individuality and self-consciousness. The Left would have us return to an >amorphous collectivism, a One World "Group Soul" type of consciousness, a >condition from which we we have striven so hard to emerge in the course of >Evolution. > >LMH III > > > Individuality is temporary. There are similarities to pre- and post-individuality in that, before, we were part of a group soul, and after, individuals will have achieved spiritual oneness. A world in which everyone could trust everyone would be conducive to pure cooperation. Since the real world is not anywhere near that way, predominant individualism is optimal. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:47:21 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Left and Right and Vanguards Message-ID: <199612180847.BAA19942@snowden.micron.net> LMH III wrote: >A further clarification between Left and Right: > >The Left espouses a totalitarian, ideological one-party state, the conformity >of the >the mass media, the glorification of the majority and an elitism (as in the >vanguard >of the proletariat). Vanguard of the proletariat? Uh, excuse me, that's communism, more specifically, Leninism. Lenin is now pushing up daisies, as is his philosophy. And your statement "glorification of the majority and an elitism" is an oxymoron in itself - the two are incompatible. Elitism? Pardon again, but that is conservatism's theory. Conservatives buy into the "irrational" concept of humanity - you know, the "gifted few" should rule the masses because the masses are incapable of ruling themselves. >The Right embraces freedom, as in free enterprise, private property, personal >independence, a respect for tradition and the primacy of the individual >(as versus the collective). The Right doesn't entirely buy into that. The left buys into it, though - they just think that it applies to ALL people, not just a few. The left believes in freedom for all, free and FAIR enterprise; private property (again, FAIR opportunity for all to own homes and personal property); respect for tradition (the right is very, very choosy about who's tradition is to be preserved - multiculturalism doesn't sit well with conservatives); - and, uh, excuse me here again - the "Right" thinks community is superior to individuals - they believe in the "organic" (society as a unit) state, not "atomism" (society as individuals) which the left ascribes to. It is not uncommon for the Right to steal the Left's ideas and claim them as their own. 'Tis, perhaps, a fault of Lefties, being so big-hearted and all, to go ahead and let them. >We evolved from a homogeneous state (mulaprakriti), working our way through >the Elemental, the Mineral, the Vegetable, Animal Kingdoms to finally achieve >individuality and self-consciousness. The Left would have us return to an >amorphous collectivism, a One World "Group Soul" type of consciousness, a >condition from which we we have striven so hard to emerge in the course of >Evolution. Clever attempt at trying to weave the 'divine wisdom' into something to back up your claims. However, the bloopers are abundant. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:15:58 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <9612180915.AA00606@toto.csustan.edu> BL >Either John Sellon is still alive or my wife had lunch with a >corpse a couple of weeks ago (and a still very sharp corpse, at >that). Michael Sellon never lost his interest in the Society, >and Peter Sellon is getting more involved. JHE I'm glad to hear that John is in good health and the kids are still involved. Actually it was Emily who I had in mind as being deceased--or did I only imagine reading that obituary? > JRC > I'd be most interested in a discussion if you'd care to offer a > couple of topics ... I'm not versed enough in TS history to > start a discussion, but could you, for instance, mention some > aspect of doctrine into which distortion was introduced ... and > perhaps even trace the development of the distortion over time? > > JHE > -not to mention the topic of the founding and historical > development of the ES. > JRC I would very much like to hear a bit more about this one, if you've got the time .... AEB So would I. JHE I've been through this scenario several times before. I would post historical information on a subject; usually several people become offended because the information challenges one or another theosophical myth. Sometimes it becomes a dialogue with one other person and dead silence from the other 100 + subscribers. Except of course the occasional personal message I would receive, like: "love your historical material--keep on writing." Actually, I don't have the time to compose those six page posts and dig up supporting documents anymore, but even if I did, I think there is a better way. I would like to see a full discussion with at least ten participants. This way we will have ten view points--not one. I will be very happy to participate and be an information resource when needed and when I can, but I don't feel that much is accomplished by my being a solo voice. Bart Lidofsky has already started the ball rolling: ............... (Beginning of an ES discussion) BL >In my opinion, the ES should be exactly what it was supposed to >be in the first place, according to the person writing as K.H. >(who may have actually been K.H.): A special section of the TS >for people who wanted to live exclusively by the tenets of the >Mahatmas, as opposed to people who wished to reach the Truth >through their own religion (as everybody must do, according to >the same letter). JHE Which letter are you quoting Bart? Do you believe that the ES is "exactly what it is supposed to be in the first place"? If not, how is it different? ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:22:06 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Left and Right and Vanguards Message-ID: <19961218092153.AAA20301@LOCALNAME> At 08:53 AM 12/18/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >LMH III wrote: >>A further clarification between Left and Right: >> >>The Left espouses a totalitarian, ideological one-party state, the conformity >>of the >>the mass media, the glorification of the majority and an elitism (as in the >>vanguard >>of the proletariat). >Vanguard of the proletariat? Uh, excuse me, that's communism, more >specifically, Leninism. Lenin is now pushing up daisies, as is his philosophy. I am not aware of the difference between communism and the left wing. >Conservatives >buy into the "irrational" concept of humanity - you know, the "gifted few" >should rule the masses because the masses are incapable of ruling themselves. If the right really believes this, they have kept it a secret from me. Their whole argument against big government is based on the idea that people can rule themselves better than a government bureaucracy can. >>The Right embraces freedom, as in free enterprise, private property, personal >>independence, a respect for tradition and the primacy of the individual >>(as versus the collective). >The Right doesn't entirely buy into that. The left buys into it, though - >they just think that it applies to ALL people, not just a few. The left >believes in freedom for all The left believes in government control. I do not understand how that translates into believing in freedom for all. If the right does not believe in freedom, they have pulled the wool over _my_ eyes. >multiculturalism doesn't sit well with conservatives); Conservatives believe that individuals should be free to choose which culture they live in. The left wants to force everyone to live in a melting pot whether they like it or not. >- and, uh, excuse me here again - the "Right" thinks community is superior >to individuals - they believe in the "organic" (society as a unit) state, >not "atomism" (society as individuals) which the left ascribes to. Again, your idea of left and right is entirely the opposite from mine. All the messages I have ever heard from the right say just the opposite from what you say they say. They say they put the individual ahead of the community. You probably consider Rush Limbaugh to be a lefty. >It is not uncommon for the Right to steal the Left's ideas and claim them as >their own. 'Tis, perhaps, a fault of Lefties, being so big-hearted and all, >to go ahead and let them. I have heard that Libertarianism is considered left wing everywhere except in the United States. Might this be an example of what you are referring to? >>We evolved from a homogeneous state (mulaprakriti), working our way through >>the Elemental, the Mineral, the Vegetable, Animal Kingdoms to finally achieve >>individuality and self-consciousness. The Left would have us return to an >>amorphous collectivism, a One World "Group Soul" type of consciousness, a >>condition from which we we have striven so hard to emerge in the course of >>Evolution. >Clever attempt at trying to weave the 'divine wisdom' into something to back >up your claims. However, the bloopers are abundant. They went right by me. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:32:33 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: The Year in Review ... Counterpoint Rant Message-ID: <32B7BA20.3551@withoutwalls.com> >Keith wrote: >Hear we are at the winter solstice again and are being allowed another life >review, societal review, political review, etc. of the year as a cycle in >time. >We are in a dark materialistic cycle, but the road winds ever upward ... >according to spiritual teachers in the past. _______ Or so we hope ... COUNTERPOINT RANT (Disclaimer: this is meant impersonally. No one in particular is implied) and now ladies and gentlemen ... from the deep folds of the garment, .. the shadow. _______ Seeing You Believe .. inception; at least you could have showered with affection the one true unit that could make a difference in this God forsaken relic of a religious life. what a joke... you sacrificed everything and gained only confusion ... what an ass. ______ infraction upon infraction, you pile up another distraction, all the while noticing you haven't got a clue. ______ signal in with the best of them. you launch into another tirade of meaningless commentary. - open your eyes. ______ sanctimonious bastard that you are - you threw away the best years of your life striving for something you could never comprehend. ______ the first thing that you noticed about me is the last thing you expected to see, some seepage at my breast. you, the proud male never expected to find yourself confronted by the matriarch. Did you ...? ______ suffering, you free me from the baleful act of watching late night tv. ______ busted liver on my microwave on my microwave pop, pop broken heart ... he's a broken hearted chicken. ______ how much of the truth can we ever hope to see at one time? ______ when I die I have to go to a place that I'd be better off living from while I was alive ______ CAR BOMB you looked at me with those big brown eyes. and all to them my nice surprise unfolded like a twisted hem. the car exploded under them. the seat wherein you'd like to sit was stained forever - stupid shit. ______ s c a t h i n g SLOGANS (Strafing run) validate art arbitrarily discount whatever you like consciously not-know awareness as a detriment distrust yourself stop thinking feel: without resorting to consciousness as a crutch. give up your artistic rights remain indefinite hide obscurity ignore relationships oppose improvement posit unconscious double standards wound with aesthetic intent .. (can you believe it? this is the shit one picks up in art schools as one moves into claiming one's own intrinsic creative power.) aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I look them right in the eye. and I say "I claim it!" I AM THAT I AM _____ "I am the one who has been hated everywhere. I am the one whom they call Law, and you have called lawlessness. I am the one whom you have pursued, And I am the one who has been seized. I am the one whom you have scattered, and you have gathered me together. I am the one before whom you have been ashamed, and you have been shameless to me. I am she who does not keep festival, and I am she whose festivals are many. I, I am godless, and I am the one whose God is great. I am the one whom you have reflected upon, and you have scorned me. I am unlearned, and they learn from me ..." (The Thunder, Perfect Mind) ______ OK, I'll stop now! ;-)> Mark ______ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Dec 18 08:37:05 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Left and Right evolution Message-ID: <199612181337.IAA14429@envirolink.org> Lmhem111@aol.com writes: >We evolved from a homogeneous state (mulaprakriti), working our way through >the Elemental, the Mineral, the Vegetable, Animal Kingdoms to finally achieve >individuality and self-consciousness. The Left would have us return to an >amorphous collectivism, a One World "Group Soul" type of consciousness, a >condition from which we we have striven so hard to emerge in the course of >Evolution. > >LMH III > Before I say anything, what would the Right have us evolve toward? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Dec 18 08:39:05 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: poetic response Message-ID: <199612181339.IAA14534@envirolink.org> Mark Kusek writes: >WithoutWalls waxes: > >Left wing over here... >Right wing over there... >Bird have to walk. Is he pining for the fjords? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Dec 18 08:48:23 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Individuality Message-ID: <199612181348.IAA15238@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >>We evolved from a homogeneous state (mulaprakriti), working our way through >>the Elemental, the Mineral, the Vegetable, Animal Kingdoms to finally >>achieveindividuality and self-consciousness. The Left would have us return >>to anamorphous collectivism, a One World "Group Soul" type of >>consciousness, acondition from which we we have striven so hard to emerge >>in the course of Evolution. >> >>LMH III > >Individuality is temporary. There are similarities to pre- and >post-individuality in that, before, we were part of a group soul, and after, >individuals will have achieved spiritual oneness. A world in which everyone >could trust everyone would be conducive to pure cooperation. Since the real >world is not anywhere near that way, predominant individualism is optimal. This is partly true, (IMO, as regards to my own studies), only if you agree that this "group soul" was not composed of many individualities, rather one soul with many "potential" individuals within it. We have achieved individuality and the "after", if we choose to choose the right path, will be composed of a group of individual sould with a common purpose. i.e. their swabhava's will be similar (note that I am not saying exactly alike). So, I think, pre-individual could be called the group soul, as Tom stated, and post- ind. could be called group of souls. Just a thought. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 13:38:22 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Blavatsky Foundation) Subject: LACK OF SCHOLARLY TONE?? PERSONAL SNIDE REMARKS?? THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER?? Message-ID: <199612172038.NAA23463@mailhost.azstarnet.com> LACK OF SCHOLARLY TONE?? PERSONAL SNIDE REMARKS?? THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER?? Tim Maroney in a previous post has written that I have made snide, personal remarks about K. Paul Johnson in my HOUSE OF CARDS paper. He writes of my "attack" on Johnson. And now I see Johnson's latest reply to Jerry HE. All of this is really beside the point which is: do my criticisms of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and K.H. have merit? Does Johnson's thesis on these two Masters fall apart like a "house of cards" in light of my criticisms? But I really wonder if, for example, Tim Maroney is aware that POSSIBLY some of the things he writes doesn't necessarily have a SCHOLARLY/NEUTRAL/FRIENDLY TONE to them? I reproduce BELOW excerpts from a posting Maroney wrote on Geoffrey Barborka's THE MAHATMAS AND THEIR LETTERS. Could some of his comments about Barborka be viewed as "personal attack" or "negative" or "snide"? Do these comments reflect negatively on Barborka? Do these comments, in effect, make "fun" of Barborka, of his "gullibility", of his "naivete"? "Barborka seems to delight...." "credulously recounted [by Barborka]" "Barborka is very impressed...." "Probably the most embarassing passage is. . .where Barborka breathlessly asks. . . ." See fuller excerpts appended at the end of my comments. What if I had used Maroney's choice phrases on Johnson? Would Maroney or Johnson have criticized me for such language? Would Maroney, Johnson, Bain, or Crocker have complained about MY tone if I had written: "...Johnson almost seems to delight in ignoring the contrary evidence to his position or thesis"? I am not trying to create more "negativity" on Theos-l and Theos-Roots. I have no desire to carry on any further "argument" with Johnson, Maroney or any one else on these side issues. Such arguments lead nowhere. But I do believe there is some truth in the saying that goes: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." (Is that the correct wording?) I also believe the ISSUES about Blavatsky and the Mahatmas raised by Johnson, Maroney and myself need to be seriously addressed and discussed. Unfortunately, such a discussion may not take place on Theos-l or Theos-Roots in the near future. Daniel Caldwell >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 23:04:29 -0800 >From: Tim Maroney >To: >Subject: Barborka: "The Mahatmas and Their Letters" >........... >. . . .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. . . . >The famous Sinnett brooch incident is credulously recounted [by Barborka] >but the reader finds not one word about the major contrary detail . . . . >Barborka is very impressed by the spiritualistic "raps" which Blavatsky >could produce at will.... Wasn't it the Fox sisters who made their raps by secretly >cracking their toe knuckles. . . .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. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:10:31 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Lack of scholarly tone etc Message-ID: <9612180910.AA01551@toto.csustan.edu> DC >I also believe the ISSUES about Blavatsky and the >Mahatmas raised by Johnson, Maroney and myself need to >be seriously addressed and discussed. Unfortunately, such a >discussion may not take place on Theos-l or Theos-Roots in the >near future. JHE And that is too bad. I think that issues concerning the Masters need to be aired. Johnson's book would seem to be a good opportunity for it. Perhaps, like the Leadbeater controversy, issues concerning the Masters is too close to home for too many people for a rational discussion to be possible in a Theosophical discussion group. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:14:25 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Reply to JHE re criticism Message-ID: <9612180914.AA01559@toto.csustan.edu> KPJ >I'm back on theos-roots for a week before signing off all lists >to revise my Cayce manuscript for the next several months. By >inadvertently posting roots material on theos-l, you pulled me >back into the debate with Daniel Caldwell, which I did not wish >to pursue beyond my to-be-published reply. JHE I don't understand. I pulled you into a debate with Caldwell by posting my remarks on theos-l, because it was "roots material"? Don't most subscribers get all theos-xxxx anyway? Or is this all based upon some kind of agreement between you two? KPJ >But actually, it is your comments to which I wish to respond >rather than his or Tim's. JHE OK. KPJ >I had commented that Daniel was publicizing his piece as >"debunking the thesis of Johnson," when in fact he was >attacking just two out of 32 proposed identifications of >Masters, and did not even identify "the thesis" he was >allegedly debunking. JHE Fact? Sounds like the real "fact" is that you and Dan just see his essay differently. KPJ >You replied that "It took Caldwell months of research and 42 >pages to discuss two people in your book. At that rate, for him >to discuss the other thirty would take volumes and years to >write." Since some of the material in *House of Cards* first >appeared in a letter I received from him in April 1993, the >number of months we are speaking of here is something like 42, >which comes out to one page per month. JHE OK. KPJ >But that is beside the point; my intention was not to suggest >that he should have attacked all 32 (God forbid, but it may >happen) but rather that he was making wildly excessive claims >for his work. JHE Nor was mine. My point was that critical essays always deal with aspects of a work--never with the entire thing. Caldwell challenged your thesis by bringing into question selected points. This is standard operating procedure. KPJ >As to Tim's comment, seconded by me, that the tone of >Caldwell's essay is inappropriately personal, snide, rabid, >etc., you replied that you "believe the tone... was within the >normal limits of what is being published today" based on the >experience of reading books and articles of literary >criticism. JHE Yes. KPJ >Then you went on to praise John Algeo as a >respected scholar who has published widely, JHE Not "praise." I just recounted his credentials. KPJ >and "assure" me that his review of my book was "professionally >written and within normal limits concerning its pejorative >tone." JHE Yes. KPJ >My career for the past twenty years has involved daily reading >of book reviews, as a basis for deciding what to buy for the >library. That works about to about 100,000 reviews read at >work, not just in short-review media like Library Journal but >also in places like the New York Times Book Review. Add to >that every review in Theosophical magazines, Gnosis, and so on. >I have *never* seen a review comparable in tone to Daniel's >essay as best I can recall, JHE I'm sure that is so. My experience has also been that book reviews published for library journals and for the popular media like the "New York Times" tend to be a lot kinder in tone than critical essays published in academic journals. But I never mentioned book reviews. I said that I was reading critical literary essays and rhetoric. These essays don't appear in the "New York Times" or "The Library Journal." They appear in academic journals. Theosophical magazines and "Gnosis" are not academic journals either. Caldwell's essay and Algeo's extended essay published in Theosophical History were in the style of critical essays published for academic journals. So we are talking about apples and oranges here. KPJ >except for Mark Jaqua's self-published magazine. (Guess who the >lucky target of that one was!) JHE Who? KPJ >As for Algeo's I'll have to take your word for it that English >professors are always so nasty among themselves. JHE You mean among other academics who have published in an academic journal or published a book through an academic press. Yes. They can get pretty critical. Since you published with an academic press, you are fair game for them. KPJ >His TH review of TMR was in the top 1% for long-windedness and >hostility among all that I ever read. JHE You mean compared to reviews written for the popular media? That is mixing apples and oranges again. KPJ >But I suggest that you are placing these events in the wrong >context in order to minimize their severity. JHE Seems to me that by comparing popular book review to academic critical essays, you are putting Caldwell's and Algeo's articles in the wrong context resulting in maximizing their severity. KPJ >What we have here are attacks by Theosophists on another >Theosophist whose intentions were basically friendly. JHE That is another way of looking at it. By looking at it this way, it can be taken as a personal assault. KPJ >Questions for you as a historian: > >1. Has any national president of the TSA ever published a 15 >page attack on a book by a member of his section? On any book >at all? JHE If I'm not mistaken, William and Loftus Hare were originally Theosophists. I have a couple of books by written Theosophists dedicated to criticizing their book "Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?". I recall other instances too, but they were shorter than 15 pages. KPJ >2. Has the *Theosophist* ever run a non-review, in which a >book's title is used as the article title, but the book itself >is never mentioned, although the article's author is clearly >attacking the book indirectly? If this has ever been done >before, was the attacked author a member? JHE What month and year of "The Theosophist" did it appear? Sounds like the same basic kind of strategy they used on Tillett. KPJ >2. Has any Theosophical book in the last 50 years been attacked >as ferociously and longwindedly as mine by Algeo and Caldwell? JHE Not that I know of. How is this question relevant? KPJ >It is the inappropriateness of their attacks within the context >of Theosophical values and claims of openness that strikes me >most. JHE I think you raised this before--suggesting that Theosophists write critical academic discourse at a different standard than other academics. I support you making this suggestion, but I don't think it will fly, unless non Theosophist academics agree to follow the same rule when writing about works of Theosophists. KPJ >You write that you doubt that Theosophists will follow the >example I have tried to set in answers to Algeo and Caldwell >(free of personal insults and appeals to authority, respectful >and patient tone, dealing with issues thoroughly but at >reasonable length) and expect that they will continue to follow >"the norms." JHE Right. For the reason I just gave above. KPJ >THE norms? What norms? There were norms of civility in >discourse that I had seen observed for 17 years in Theosophical >publications before my books came along, and suddenly they are >meaningless. The norms followed/exemplified by Algeo and >Caldwell may strike you as just fine, but they have not been the >governing norms in Theosophical writing. JHE I wasn't aware that Caldwell published his critical essay in a Theosophical magazine. I knew that Algeo published a book review "The American Theosophist." But it has been the much stronger and extensive review that he published for "Theosophical History" (an academic journal) that I thought you are complaining about. Again: apples and oranges. KPJ >If I had *ever* seen *any* author, Theosophist or not, attacked >by a TS official the way Algeo did me, before joining the TS, I >would never have wanted to belong to it in the first place. JHE OK. KPJ >In your conclusion, you write: "Actually, the only thing I see >to be unusual about the circumstances surrounding publication of >your book has been the extraordinary efforts you have made to >defend it and to criticize others who have been critical of it. >It is hardly typical behavior for authors to carry on public >debates with their critics." > >Extraordinary efforts? All I did was let myself get sucked >into a week or two's worth of back-and-forth arguments with >Caldwell, in late 1993 or early 1994, before deciding this was >not worth my time and effort. JHE Maybe it is a subjective and inaccurate observation on my part, but it seems to me that the overwhelming vast majority of your posts, from the time you stated on theos-l, have been about your book; about defending your book; about reviews of your book; or about how you feel about being "attacked" concerning your book; about positive reviews on your book; about experiences with theosophists you have had concerning your book; about how different people at A.R.E. are concerning your book etc. If I'm wrong, perhaps someone else who has been following your posts can set me straight. KPJ >Later, at your request I think, I did the same thing with you >about one aspect of my work for a week or so. JHE I recall the exchange, but don't recall requesting it. KPJ >The Internet has certainly made authors a lot more >accessible to their critics, so what you call "typical >behavior," if based on print media, is anachronistic (ALAS!). JHE Its up to the author to respond. KPJ >You criticized me back then for not giving Caldwell carte >blanche, answering every challenge and complaint until he ran >out, even if it took months. JHE Yes, I recall. But it wasn't "criticism" but meant to be friendly advice. At the time, you had already been well engaged with Caldwell, then suddenly you wanted to pull out in the middle of the debate. I didn't think that looked good on your part. I thought you should have finished it. KPJ >Now you blame me for "extraordinary efforts" to do what you once >blamed me for not doing enough of. JHE Not blame. If I were you, I would not have engaged in any debates in the first place. If I did, I would go to the bitter end. Anyway, we are back to apples and oranges again. KPJ >Apart from those brief mistaken forays into debates (debates >that you implied I had a moral responsibility to engage in for >the good of Theosophical scholarship), I haven't debated my >critics publicly. It is *absolutely* typical behavior >for authors to *answer* their critics, as I have with Algeo, >Crews and now Caldwell. Look at the *New York Review of Books* >or the Times Book Review or any other literary rag and you will >see that authors answering their critics is "the norm" to use >your phrase. Debate? I'm not interested. JHE Exactly what I have been trying to get across to you. Glad we agree. KPJ >In fact, I offered to let Daniel have my reply to him to put on >his website, with the condition that this be the end of >discussion. If he wants to answer my answer, challenge me to >explain more things, generally continue to harass me as he has >off and on for years-- forget it. I have better things to do. >He refused this condition, apparently *will* answer my response, >but I won't get sucked into any more exchanges with him. JHE Better late than never. KPJ >You conclude "Rather, they embrace both the critical and the >friendly reviews in the joyful knowledge that their book is >being read and debated." I might be joyful about the reception >of my books if the attackers were a bunch of strangers, and the >praise came from people I had invested 17 years of my life in. >But when it's the other way around, can't you see that >circumstances affect response? JHE Don't see it in this case. Academic criticism is done by academics to academics. They all know each other. If I published a book with SUNY and Algeo mopped the floor with it in "Theosophical History," I would say "par for the course." But I am me and you are you. KPJ >If I could have simply said "To hell with them, they're just >silly Theosophists" the amount of pain in my lifetime would have >been drastically lessened. But having acquired the illusion >that this movement was one without fixed dogmas, open to new >ideas, and devoted to discussing them in an atmosphere of mutual >respect, I was motivated to struggle to *make* those things a >reality when it became clear that they were *not.* Quite a waste >of time and energy, but perhaps there has been a karmic >recompense for it all. JHE I joined the TS in 1963. When I attended the National convention in 1965 and saw how they went about pushing Henry Smith (then National President) out of office with cat calls and all, I never again for a moment held the allusion that Theosophists were any better than anyone else. I remember writing a letter to my Lodge in Los Angeles describing the fiasco and telling them that "I was ashamed to be a Theosophist" if this is what it means to be one. I looks like it took you a little longer to get over your naivete. KPJ >Jerry, your theme song about me has been "there is no problem >with any of your critics, the only problem is with you and your >books." JHE No. My "theme song" about you has been: "There is no problem with any of your critics, and there is nothing you can do about it if there was. So lighten up." KPJ >When I announced that I was writing about Cayce, you >said something like "Well, we'll just see if you get along any >better with the ARE than the TS"-- clearly implying that you >placed all the blame for my painful experiences with the TS on >my own shoulders, and predicted more of the same with the new >book. JHE My point was that TMR attacked a central dogma of the ES. Your hurt reactions to TS members who have attacked you (I'm not talking about Caldwell and Algeo now) strikes me a very naive. I predicted that if you attack the central dogma of the A.R.E. inner circle (whatever that is), you will get the same treatment. I stand by that prediction. KPJ >How could things be different with the ARE, since the whole >problem was my [scholarly ineptitude, neurosis, >argumentativeness] whatever bad traits you consistently blame me >for? JHE You mean the naivete I think you carry around? KPJ >Well, here's some news I've been reluctant to post, for fear of >sounding "Nya na na na nah." I interviewed Charles Thomas >Cayce in August, and just got a phone call from him last week. >In our half-hour talk, he said he was "just very excited" by my >manuscript, which he had read as a reader for SUNY. He told me >that his column in the next Venture Inward would be devoted to >informing members about new scholarly approaches to Cayce, >including my own book and two other writers he had met >recently. In his end of year letter to members, he listed 11 >highlights of 1996. One was working in the Edgar Cayce >Foundation with "an author whose book on the life and work of >Edgar Cayce will appear in the SUNY Press series on Western >Esoteric Traditions." And when the book is about to come out, >it will get some sort of sendoff in one of the magazines. >You might think, "Surely this new book is less controversial and >critical than his other ones." Not so. This will be the most >skeptical, critical look at Cayce ever published-- and yet folks >at ARE aren't scared, or mad, but delighted. They are >enthusiastic about the burgeoning of scholarly interest in >Cayce, and accept my work as a harbinger of future developments. JHE I'm glad to hear that things are going well for you with SUNY and the A.R.E. KPJ >What this tells me is that there *are* spiritual groups that >don't share what you as a Theosophist call "the norm." JHE Again, my reference to "the norm" concerned academic criticism, not the TS. KPJ >Maybe you have gotten so accustomed to the ugly features of >Theosophical culture that you have become completely cynical. JHE You are probably right. But I don't believe that my cynicism is unrealistic. KPJ >Even when you see someone who was once a friend getting attacked >and ostracized in a most untheosophical manner, the most >compassionate response you can come up with is "Serves you >right, should have known better." > >Well, now I do. JHE I'm glad that you know better now. But I feel bad for you that it was such a long and painful struggle. I take it from the above that we are now ex-friends. I'm very sorry to learn this. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 12:06:25 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Healthy Developments for A.R.E. Message-ID: <199612181706.MAA13263@leo.vsla.edu> The current (January/February) issue of Venture Inward, the magazine of the Association for Research and Enlightenment, contains a very pleasant surprise for me. Since the issue of A.R.E.'s receptivity to potentially controversial scholarship has been discussed here before, it may be of interest to some on the list. The surprise is a column by Charles Thomas Cayce, Ph.D., President of the Edgar Cayce Foundation, with the title "Healthy Developments for A.R.E." It opens, "Those of us on the staff of the A.R.E. who are working with and talking about the readings on a day-to-day basis sometimes have difficulty seeing the forest for the trees. Three recent events helped put this in perspective for me." He then devotes one paragraph each to describing a young graduate student doing a dissertation on Edgar Cayce (which will be a very fine book one day-- I've read it) and a biographer with a contract from a large publisher to do another Cayce bio. Neither of these writers is affiliated with A.R.E., but Dr. Cayce welcomes their investigations and looks forward to their works' completion. The remaining 4 paragraphs open with these words: "My most interesting discussion along these lines, however, was with Paul Johnson, a scholar under contract with the State University of New York Press (SUNY) for a volume on the work of Edgar Cayce for their series on Western Esoteric Traditions. His last volume on Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky received a very positive review in *Newsweek* [sic] but not by many Theosophists. [Actually it was the one before last, and the *NYT Book Review*-- but I was the one taking notes, not he] Nonetheless, I think the project is a tremendously healthy development for the A.R.E. and will be viewed in the future as a milestone in the history of this work." The column concludes "Johnson will raise important questions about the readings, including sources of the information and aspects of the past-life information. His long study of the Cayce material promises a balanced approach that will ultimately benefit ths work and its helpfulness to a struggling world." Sorry to post something so flattering, but there's a point here that has nothing to do with me personally, and a lot to do with different organizational mindsets. My manuscript, which Dr. Cayce has read, will be the most skeptical and critical book ever written about his grandfather, as best I can tell-- and there have been almost 600. Why can the A.R.E. embrace such an approach, regard it as healthy and helpful, whereas most Theosophical officials' reactions to a similar stimulus were so negative? Some hypotheses: 1. A.R.E. is generally a more optimistic organization, as a result of its various successes of the last 30 years, and therefore more inclined to assume something will be helpful rather than harmful to its interests. 2. Cayce hasn't had nearly the bad press HPB has, so A.R.E. attitudes are much less paranoid and defensive than Theosophical ones tend to be. 3. At an earlier point in its life cycle than the TS, the A.R.E. hasn't had time to evolve the rigidity of Theosophy. 4. Cayce is not idolized or idealized by his followers to the extent that HPB and the Masters are by Theosophists, so there's less reactivity to criticism. 5. Since there are still Cayces around in the organization, people have a more grounded appreciation of Edgar, less need to mythologize him. (Thanks to JRC for suggesting 3-5 in private email.) 6. There are individual differences between the leaders of the organizations that might be more important that the differences between the organizations themselves. 7. The emphasis in A.R.E. is strongly pragmatic and eclectic, with none of the demands for true belief and avoidance of the "wrong" ideas that we find in Theosophical circles. I'll close with a quote in the same issue from Stan Khury, Chairman of the A.R.E. Board of Trustees: "If it were true to the teachings in the readings, A.R.E. would have no doctrine, no belief system, and would encourage taking personal responsibility for one's own seeking-- all things to which I resonate at a deep level." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:44:20 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Pining Away Message-ID: <32B82D73.5E43@withoutwalls.com> >The Triaist wrote: >Is he pining for the fjords? --- Oh Yangtse Oh Yangtse Beautiful river full of fish ... :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 10:58:57 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Left and Right and Vanguards Message-ID: <199612181758.KAA18130@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >I am not aware of the difference between communism and the left wing. The goal of communism is a "classless state." The goal of the left wing, here in America, is to try and ensure that all people have food, clothing, medical care - you know, those pesky things. The left wing does not espouse a classless society. And yes, the left wing does believe that the government is responsible for ensuring the "welfare" (gasp) of its citizens. >If the right really believes this, they have kept it a secret from me. >Their whole argument against big government is based on the idea that people >can rule themselves better than a government bureaucracy can. Be not fooled! The Right wants government in your bedroom, in your classroom, and in your womb. And by the way, the state and local governments employ three times as many people (read bureaucrats) as the federal government. (at least last time I checked) >The left believes in government control. I do not understand how that >translates into believing in freedom for all. If the right does not believe >in freedom, they have pulled the wool over _my_ eyes. I didn't say the right didn't believe in freedom - the right just believes in freedom for a select few. Funny, I haven't seen the right rally for the freedom and individual rights of say, women? minorities? homosexuals? children? elderly? mentally ill? handicapped? But I sure have seen them squawk and squeek about how the members of the Fortune 500 are having their rights violated. Oh, please. >Conservatives believe that individuals should be free to choose which >culture they live in. The left wants to force everyone to live in a melting >pot whether they like it or not. Excuse me, but didn't a law pass declaring English as the only official language, and that speaking any other language in a workplace is grounds for dismissal? Dole downright glowed when he spoke of that in speeches, even managed to complete a few sentences while doing so. Talk about forcing everyone to live "in a melting pot." Lefties call the melting pot a "salad bowl" recognizing that people have different lifestyles, but that it can certainly be compatible, nay, enhance living in America. >You probably consider Rush Limbaugh to be a lefty. I consider Rush Limbaugh to be a demented lollipop with a windy bottom to boot. 'Nuff about him. >I have heard that Libertarianism is considered left wing everywhere except >in the United States. Might this be an example of what you are referring to? Although I admire the Libertarians stance on civil rights - I am disturbed about some of their other beliefs such as: hospital emergency rooms shouldn't be required to treat anyone who can't pay or that requiring doctors to get medical licenses is a violation of free enterprise. (their platform is on the Net) >>Clever attempt at trying to weave the 'divine wisdom' into something to back >>up your claims. However, the bloopers are abundant. > >They went right by me. Well, sink me! Never would have dreamed. Kumbuya, Tom, Kumbuya. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:17:10 -0800 From: April Joy Subject: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <32B84336.62F7@gnp.com> #766 - Tom Robertson wrote: April Joy wrote: >>At what point in my initial reply to you did I say women were superior? .>>I do not believe either gender is superior. >>Which 23 criticisms of women do you have? Why would I need to give 23 criticisms of women, when I was answering your criticisms of them to begin with? You called women irrational, then I gave examples of irrational acts by men. Which upsets you the most, that someone dared to answer your criticisms with criticisms or that a woman answered you in a logical manner? Through the posts that I have read you have consistently stated that men are superior than women due to irrationality, emotionalism, and physcial weakness. Then you say they are equal whenever anyone states those remarks are sexist. To be equal doesn't equate to superior. Superior = Having more value, or importance. One higher in quality or merit. Equal = Having the same value, or quality. Sexism/Sexist = prejudice or discrimination based on sex. To believe that men are superior to women means you do not believe they are equal. Which means you do not believe in equality of the sexs, which is sexist. --- Women are neither superior or inferior to men. We are equal. We are both capable of doing the same jobs. What differences there are means that women, men and just different types of people, will arrive at a solution for a problem from a different angle but will find the solution just the same. Each person in society has different ways of handling various situations that doesn't make one more superior to the other. Where society, laws, jobs, home, religion are concerned women rights is still in its infancy. Women still have a long way to go to have the same rights that men have. Just the fact that you Tom believe that old myth that "women like to be dominated" shows how far women's rights has to go before all men dump their sterotypes of women and treat us as equals. Just three years ago I lost a job because a man thought the way you do. I was good at my job, I had received many company commendations for my work. But when I got a new manager who bluntly stated that "you should be a secretary, this is a man's job", I quickly lost my job. He deliberately undermined all my work. I created computer presentations for the company. He would turn in my drafts as complete work. Then he would tell the higher ups that the work I was turning in was low quality. I didn't loose my job because I was incompetent, I lost my job because a sexist male delibrately sabatoged my work. I lost two jobs because my bosses wanted sex on the side and I refused. I lost another job because I had a baby and the boss thought it would interfer with my work. Tom, have you ever lost a job because you wouldn't put out? Have you ever been asked to put out in order to keep a job or get a promotion? If you have children, did you ever loose or not get a job because the company felt it would interfer with your work? Have you ever gone for an interview where the interviewer made remarks about your boby and hinted or stated they wanted your body? Have you ever gone to an interview where the person hinted or stated they would prefer somenone of the opposite sex in the position that was open? Have you ever gone to a doctor's office and been groped by the doctor? Have you ever waited at a bus stop only to get 1 to 10 offers of money for sex? These are just a few of the problems that women face every day due to a belief that women are inferior so it doesn't matter how you treat them. Women need to stand up to people like you Tom who are deteremined to keep those stereotypes alive. For women suffer in the home, work, and in almost all areas of life because of those beliefs. April Joy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:25:55 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <19961218202553.AAA468@LOCALNAME> At 10:05 PM 12/16/96 +0000, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > >TR >>I have no information on which to base a definite opinion about >>any specifics of the "Wheaton oligarchy" except that I >>personally think very highly of one of the ex-national officers >>who is a member of my lodge, > >JHE >Well, I guess I was not sufficiently explicit when I used the >term "Wheaton Oligarchy." I doubt that if I were to name names, >they would have much meaning to most of the people on theos-l, >but for the record, here goes: The people I have in mind do not >necessarily sit on the National Board, though all of them have at >one time or another. Further, those who are elected to the >National Board are not necessarily a member of this exclusive >group, though this group has a lot of influence as to who does. >I have been a member of the TS since 1963 and have known many of >them, but most are now dead--E.G.: Ann Green, Fritz Kunz, the >Sellons, Anita Wild, the Laytons etc. Those who are still living >include: Willamay Pym, Dora Kunz, Joy Mills and Austin Bee. New >comers to the circle include John Algeo and Betty Bland. I am >not suggesting that any of the above named are or were awful >people--only that they are very powerful influences in the >Wheaton TS. I personally get along with most of the above people >and I'm even rather fond of one or two. I would not be surprised if Willamay Pym is one of which you are fond, since she was who I was referring to as the one of whom I think highly. I would find it hard to believe that she has been involved in suppressing anyone's voice. We both attend most members' meetings at the Seattle lodge, we are both on the board, and we frequently disagree, but I have never seen a sign of her trying to suppress anything I (or anyone else) wanted to say, but just the opposite. She has gone out of her way to encourage me. I know little of the politics of the TS, but I find it easy to believe that these people have the power that you say they do. But why is that considered to be a problem? The only alternative to someone having power is to not have an organization at all. That power can be abused does not mean that it is not a net gain. My impression so far from the comments on this list is that the very existence of power, not how it is used, is what is being criticized. If Theosophy does not stand for some ideas and reject others, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:27:18 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: right & left Message-ID: <199612182037.PAA23737@ultra1.dreamscape.com> What you describe as the left is the worst kind of totalitarianism, which since the end of the cold war is entirely passe. Other views of the left are that individuals work together voluntarily as a group, and get soemthing accomplished by cooperating with each other. This coopeeration does not interfere with the fact that each person has their own individual thoughts, ideas, and is free to act as (s)he chooses (I'd say, as long as it's moral). In this idea of the left, the government jumps in wherever it's necessary. As for instance, before labor unions were legal, people were working 15,16 hours a day, for a pittance, and whoever owned the means of production became wealthy. The only institution which did something with the workers was debtors' prison. On the early machines, workers lost fingers, arms & legs, and it was just their tough luck.They worked in coal mines & got black lung diseaase, which meant they couldn't work anymore and so became paupers. The women spent long hours over sweat shop sewing machines, again for very little money, and if there was a fire, like the Triangle Fire, there wasn't even a safe way to get out of the building. They died in the fire, and who cared. I guess the people who owned the sewing machines mourned the loss of those. If anyone wants to call that freedom, I don't. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:03:08 -0800 (PST) From: James S Yungkans Subject: ES Discussion (Ref: TS Corrruption) Message-ID: <199612182103.NAA20058@sure.net> (Beginning of an ES discussion) BL >In my opinion, the ES should be exactly what it was supposed to >be in the first place, according to the person writing as K.H. >(who may have actually been K.H.): A special section of the TS >for people who wanted to live exclusively by the tenets of the >Mahatmas, as opposed to people who wished to reach the Truth >through their own religion (as everybody must do, according to >the same letter). JHE >Which letter are you quoting Bart? Do you believe that the ES is >"exactly what it is supposed to be in the first place"? If not, >how is it different? JSY Knowing nothing of the post-HPB ES, I thought the ES, as defined, was to be a separate organization from the TS. to quote HPB in "Comments on the theosophical society and HPB", Lucifer Feb. 1891: "I gladly give room to the protect which follows...a member of the E.S. who receives instructions emanating from the Masters of the Occult Philosophy, and doubts at the same time the genuineness of the source, or the honesty of the humble transmitter of the old esteric doctorines - lies to his own soul, and is untrue to his pledge...From the very beginning it's [the E.S.'s]second rule stated, that the "esoteric section has no official or corporate connection with the Exoteric Society" In comparision, quoting H.T. Patterson, in the same article: "when it is said 'If there are no Masters, the Theosophical Society is an absurdity, and there is no use in keeping it up', a misstatement is made...The honest materialist, the honest agnostic, the honest spiritualist, the honest christian-scientist, the honest dogmatic christian, may be an honest disbeliever in HPB and the masters, and an honest member of the Theosophical Society too, provided he is elisted in the cause of humanity." HPB endorsed this position as "Expressing my [HPB's] feelings." The above seems to state (A) that the ES was NOT meant to be a special section of the T.S., but entirely separate from it, and (B) that Theosophical doctorine (Dogma) was not to be an overriding emphasis of the T.S. This emphasis seems to have started with Besant, as implied within the text of the article, and continued to the current T.S. Leadership (I.E. Burnier and company), based upon prior evidence presented during Theos-L discussions. - - - - - 3 participants in discussion. Next? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:58:59 EST From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: Re: ES Discussion (Ref: TS Corrruption) Message-ID: <199612182158.4107500@microfone.net> >(Beginning of an ES discussion) JSY: >In comparision, quoting H.T. Patterson, in the same article: >"when it is said 'If there are no Masters, ... (clip) >The above seems to state (A) that the ES was NOT meant to be a special >section of the T.S., but entirely separate from it, and (B) that >Theosophical doctorine (Dogma) was not to be an overriding emphasis of the >T.S. This emphasis seems to have started with Besant, as implied within the >text of the article, and continued to the current T.S. Leadership (I.E. >Burnier and company), based upon prior evidence presented during Theos-L >discussions. >3 participants in discussion. Next? four comments: 1) I don't follow your statement (A) above; how do you come to that conclusion of "entirely separate" from the text listed? 2) "Theosophical doctrine (Dogma)" is one of the more contested phrases on this list, so it's hard to know how you're using it. The idea of "non-acceptance" in Theosophy is based upon HPB's quote of the Buddha not to accept *anything* which is not Self-determined in SD Vol III p.401, and what can be more "theosophically dogmatic" than the SD? 3) The Besant timeframe that you listed brings up the division of the ES, which correlates roughly to pre-Krishnamurti and post-Krishnamurti, yes? This is one of the key points in understanding the ES and its influence on the TS(A). 4) in earlier threads re: the ES on this list, others have pointed out the necessity of separating things ABOUT the ES from things OF the ES. Since the ES is both a "secret" organization and one that is blamed by many of the frequent theos-l posters as the source of many-if-not-most of the present TSA problems, it is not likely that anyone is going to admit on here to being a long-time ES member. We should be careful to keep any discussion about the ES as objective as possible. Jim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:07:31 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The Year in Review ... Counterpoint Rant Message-ID: <199612182343.SAA18048@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Mark Kusek > > "I am the one who has been hated everywhere. > > I am the one whom they call Law, > and you have called lawlessness. > > I am the one whom you have pursued, > And I am the one who has been seized. > > I am the one whom you have scattered, > and you have gathered me together. > > I am the one before whom you have been ashamed, > and you have been shameless to me. > > I am she who does not keep festival, > and I am she whose festivals are many. > > I, I am godless, > and I am the one whose God is great. > > I am the one whom you have reflected upon, > and you have scorned me. > > I am unlearned, > and they learn from me ..." > > (The Thunder, Perfect Mind) > > ______ > > OK, I'll stop now! ;-)> > In regard to the above, this sounds an AWFUL lot like The Hymn of Jesus (GRS Mead). But thanks for posting it. That's one of my favorites. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:00:12 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <199612190003.TAA26326@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: April Joy > These are just a few of the problems that women face every day due to a > belief that women are inferior so it doesn't matter how you treat them. > Women need to stand up to people like you Tom who are deteremined to > keep those stereotypes alive. For women suffer in the home, work, and in > almost all areas of life because of those beliefs. After reading this post, I have come to conclusion that if we meet Tom or anyone like him in cyberspace, we should rhetorically shoot and aim with the best posts we can write. These type of weak and low-esteem characters who use women, or any one else, to bolster their suffering egos, are holding back the rest of humanity. If we can awaken and enlighten them, we will be doing them and the rest of the world a lot of good. To fit into the coming Aquarian Age, which emphasizes equality for all, these type of individuals are going to have to quickly learn another level of consciousness or suffer through being ostracized from the rest of society. Let us all remember, whether we inhabit male or female bodies at this time, that in the future, we will be inhabiting exactly the opposite. However you treat people in this life is going to be measured out to you in another. In the dualistic Age of Pisces, women have endured the role of slave, along with other racial groups, while men have largely played the parts of master. Now the astrological wheel is turning and the genders will be equal, perhaps not tommorrow, but in time. There are many changes coming and it would be wise for anyone to get with the program. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:25:47 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: Dear April: It was a very eye opening post. Most of the items you described are things most of us know. As a matter of fact just this week in my city there is a trial going on in which a rich and powerful 73 businessman is on trial for performing oral sex on a 14 year old employee who was abandoned by her parents and had been living with relatives and had to work for such basic necessities like food and clothing. In such a situation she was taken advantage of by this man. It is my hope that one of these days men wisen up and treat women in a kinder and gentler and responsible manner. Only then men can stand up with their heads high and a clear conscience. This is not to say that there are no men around who live up to very high standards when dealing with women. MKR On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, April Joy wrote: > #766 - Tom Robertson wrote: > > April Joy wrote: > > >>At what point in my initial reply to you did I say women were superior? > .>>I do not believe either gender is superior. > > >>Which 23 criticisms of women do you have? > > Why would I need to give 23 criticisms of women, when I was answering > your criticisms of them to begin with? You called women irrational, then > I gave examples of irrational acts by men. Which upsets you the most, > that someone dared to answer your criticisms with criticisms or that a > woman answered you in a logical manner? > > Through the posts that I have read you have consistently stated that men > are superior than women due to irrationality, emotionalism, and physcial > weakness. Then you say they are equal whenever anyone states those > remarks are sexist. To be equal doesn't equate to superior. > > Superior = Having more value, or importance. One higher in quality or > merit. > Equal = Having the same value, or quality. > Sexism/Sexist = prejudice or discrimination based on sex. > > To believe that men are superior to women means you do not believe they > are equal. Which means you do not believe in equality of the sexs, which > is sexist. > > --- > Women are neither superior or inferior to men. We are equal. We are both > capable of doing the same jobs. What differences there are means that > women, men and just different types of people, will arrive at a solution > for a problem from a different angle but will find the solution just > the same. Each person in society has different ways of handling various > situations that doesn't make one more superior to the other. > > Where society, laws, jobs, home, religion are concerned women rights is > still in its infancy. Women still have a long way to go to have the same > rights that men have. Just the fact that you Tom believe that old myth > that "women like to be dominated" shows how far women's rights has to go > before all men dump their sterotypes of women and treat us as equals. > > Just three years ago I lost a job because a man thought the way you do. > I was good at my job, I had received many company commendations for my > work. But when I got a new manager who bluntly stated that "you should > be a secretary, this is a man's job", I quickly lost my job. He > deliberately undermined all my work. I created computer presentations > for the company. He would turn in my drafts as complete work. Then he > would tell the higher ups that the work I was turning in was low > quality. I didn't loose my job because I was incompetent, I lost my job > because a sexist male delibrately sabatoged my work. > > I lost two jobs because my bosses wanted sex on the side and I refused. > > I lost another job because I had a baby and the boss thought it would > interfer with my work. > > Tom, have you ever lost a job because you wouldn't put out? Have you > ever been asked to put out in order to keep a job or get a promotion? > > If you have children, did you ever loose or not get a job because the > company felt it would interfer with your work? > > Have you ever gone for an interview where the interviewer made remarks > about your boby and hinted or stated they wanted your body? > > Have you ever gone to an interview where the person hinted or stated > they would prefer somenone of the opposite sex in the position that was > open? > > Have you ever gone to a doctor's office and been groped by the doctor? > > Have you ever waited at a bus stop only to get 1 to 10 offers of money > for sex? > > These are just a few of the problems that women face every day due to a > belief that women are inferior so it doesn't matter how you treat them. > Women need to stand up to people like you Tom who are deteremined to > keep those stereotypes alive. For women suffer in the home, work, and in > almost all areas of life because of those beliefs. > > April Joy > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:34:54 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Lumpy's Proletariat Message-ID: <199612190146.UAA07937@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Lmhem111@aol.com > > A further clarification between Left and Right: > > The Left espouses a totalitarian, ideological one-party state, the conformity > of the > the mass media, the glorification of the majority and an elitism (as in the > vanguard > of the proletariat). This leads to the usual leftist utopian vision of the > ant hill. > The Right embraces freedom, as in free enterprise, private property, personal > independence, a respect for tradition and the primacy of the individual > (as versus the collective). > Gee. I wonder which side you favor. : -) AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:08:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY: A Core Library of Recommended Reading Message-ID: <199612190208.TAA06338@mailhost.azstarnet.com> ************************************************************* H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY: A Core Library of Recommended Reading (All books are currently in print as of 12/96. Please e-mail us for price and ordering information. We will gladly suggest various courses of reading.) ************************************************************* Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell Issued by The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW URL address: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/ E-mail address: blafoun@azstarnet.com ************************************************************ "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...[is]...the most insightful and comprehensive teacher of esoteric philosophy in modern times...." Shirley Nicholson. Ancient Wisdom, Modern Insight. 1985. "...Madame Blavatsky...stands out as the fountainhead of modern occult thought...." J. Gordon Melton, Jerome Clark and Aidan A. Kelly. New Age Almanac. 1991. "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...is surely among the most original and perceptive minds of her time....[In her two major books]....lies...the first philosophy of psychic and spiritual evolution to appear in the modern West...." Theodore Roszak. The Unfinished Animal. 1975. ************************************************************ This suggested reading list is divided into five bookshelves: **An Introduction to the Life and Influence of Madame Blavatsky **An Introduction to Theosophy by several modern writers **An Classical Introduction to Theosophy by H.P. Blavatsky, A.P. Sinnett and Constance Wachtmeister **Others Studies on Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky **The Writings of H.P. Blavatsky and the Mahatmas ____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 1: An Introduction to the Life and Influence of Madame Blavatsky (1) When Daylight Comes: Biography of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. By Howard Murphet. (2) The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky: Reminiscences And Impressions by Those Who Knew Her. Compiled and edited by Daniel H. Caldwell (3) H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine": Commentaries on Her Contributions to World Thought. Edited by Virginia Hanson. (4) HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement. By Sylvia Cranston. (5) The Real H.P. Blavatsky: A Study of Theosophy, and a Memoir of a Great Soul. By William Kingsland. _____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 2: An Introduction to Theosophy by several modern authors (6) An Introduction to Esoteric Principles: A Study Guide. By William Doss McDavid. (7) Deity, Cosmos and Man: An Outline of Esoteric Science. By Geoffrey A. Farthing. (8) Ancient Wisdom---Modern Insight. By Shirley Nicholson. (9) The Divine Plan: Written in the Form of a Commentary on H.P. Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine." By Geoffrey A. Barborka. ____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 3: An Classical Introduction to Theosophy by H.P. Blavatsky, A.P. Sinnett and Constance Wachtmeister (10) An Invitation to "The Secret Doctrine." By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP. (11) The Occult World. By A.P. Sinnett. TPH edition. (12) Esoteric Buddhism. By A.P. Sinnett. Wizards Bookshelf edition. (13) The Key to Theosophy. By H.P. Blavatsky. With Glossary. TPH edition. (14) Spiritual Evolution: Articles by H.P. Blavatsky. TC (15) Teachers and Disciples: Articles by H.P. Blavatsky. TC (16) The Voice of The Silence: Being Chosen Fragments from the "Book of The Golden Precepts" for the Daily Use of Lanoos (Disciples). Translated and Annotated by "H.P.B." TUP edition. (17) Reminiscences of H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine." By Countess Constance Wachtmeister and others. (18) An Abridgement of "The Secret Doctrine." By H.P. Blavatsky. Edited by Elizabeth Preston and Christmas Humphreys. (19) H.P. Blavatsky Teaches: An Anthology. Compiled by Michael Gomes. _______________________________________________________ Bookshelf 4: Others Studies on Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky (20) An Inquiry into the Nature of Mind. By Adam Warcup. (21) Exploring the Great Beyond: A Survey of the Field of the Extraordinary. By Geoffrey A. Farthing. (22) When We Die: A Description of the After-Death States and Processes. By Geoffrey A. Farthing. PLP. (23) Reincarnation: A New Horizon in Science, Religion and Society. By Sylvia Cranston and Carey Williams. TUP. (24) Reincarnation, the Phoenix Fire Mystery: An East-West Dialogue on Death, and Rebirth from the Worlds of Religion, Science, Psychology, Philosophy, Art, and Literature, and from Great Thinkers of the Past and Present. Compiled and Edited by Joseph Head and S.L. Cranston. TUP. (25) Concentration and Meditation: A Manual of Mind Development. By Christmas Humphreys. (26) Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures & Universal Mystery Language of Myth and Symbol. By Henry Travers Edge. PLP. (27) The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Christian Scriptures. By William Kingsland. (28) The Cosmic Womb: An Interpretation of Man's Relationship to the Infinite. By Arthur W. Osborn. (29) The Divine Plan by Geoffrey A. Barborka. (30) Man, The Measure of All Things: In the Stanzas of Dzyan. By Sri Krishna Prem and Sri Madhava Ashish. (31) Man, God and the Universe. By I.K. Taimni. (32) The Mathematics of the Cosmic Mind: A Study in Mathematical Symbolism. by L. Gordon Plummer. (33) Cyclic Evolution: A Theosophical View. By Adam Warcup. (34) Archaic History of the Human Race: As Recorded in "The Secret Doctrine" By H.P. Blavatsky. By Gertrude W. van Pelt. PLP. (35) The Peopling of the Earth. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (36) The Story of Human Evolution. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (37) The Dawning of the Theosophical Movement. By Michael Gomes. (38) H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (39) The Hall of Magic Mirrors. By Victor A. Endersby. (40) Obituary: The "Hodgson Report " on Madame Blavatsky: Re-Examination Discredits the Major Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky. By Adlai W. Waterman. BF. (41) Theosophy: A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom. By Alvin Boyd Kuhn. (42) Masters and Men: The Human Story in The Mahatma Letters. By Virginia Hanson. (43) The Mahatmas and Their Letters. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (44) The Readers Guide to "The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett." Compiled and Edited by George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson. Second edition. ____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 5: The Writings of H.P. Blavatsky and the Mahatmas (45) Isis Unveiled. By H.P. Blavatsky. TC Facsimile of the Original Edition. 2 volumes bound in one volume. (46) Isis Unveiled. By H.P. Blavatsky. Edited by Boris de Zirkoff. TPH edition. 2 volumes. (47) The Secret Doctrine. By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP Facsimile of the Original Edition. 2 volumes. (48) Index to "The Secret Doctrine." TC. (49) The Secret Doctrine. By H.P. Blavatsky. Edited by Boris de Zirkoff. TPH edition. 3 volumes. Volume 3 is an index volume. (50) The Key to Theosophy. By H.P. Blavatsky. With Glossary. TUP edition. (51) The Voice of the Silence. By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP edition. Also available as a cassette. (52) The Voice of the Silence. By H.P. Blavatsky. With Historical Introduction and Index by Boris de Zirkoff. TPH edition. (53) Secret Doctrine Commentary, Stanzas I-IV: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge. By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP edition. (54) The Theosophical Glossary. By H.P. Blavatsky. TC edition. (55) "The Esoteric Instructions." By H.P. Blavatsky. TPH, Collected Writings, Vol. 12 (56) The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky. Second edition. PLP (57) Theosophical Articles. By H.P. Blavatsky. 3 volumes. TC. (58) A Modern Panarion: A Collection of Fugitive Fragments from the Pen of H.P. Blavatsky. TC (59) The Collected Writings. By H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and Edited by By Boris de Zirkoff. 15 volumes. Vol. 15 is an index volume. TPH. (60) The New Testament Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (61) The Vedanta Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (62) H.P. Blavatsky on the Gnostics. Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (63) The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (64) Glyphs and Symbols. By H.P. Blavatsky. CGP (65) The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett. Compiled by A. Trevor Barker. TUP (66) H.P.B. Speaks. 2 volumes. TPH. (67) From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan. By H.P. Blavatsky. TPH (68) The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. [In Chronological Sequence]. Arranged and edited by Vicente Hao Chin, Jr. [Fourth edition.] TPH Philippines. (69) The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. Facsimile of 2nd Edition. Paparback. TUP. (70) Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom. 2 volumes. Transcribed and edited by C. Jinarajadasa. TPH. ***************************************************************** Compiled 12/96 ***************************************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:39:22 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <9612190239.AA30515@toto.csustan.edu> TR >I would not be surprised if Willamay Pym is one of which you are >fond, since she was who I was referring to as the one of whom I >think highly. I would find it hard to believe that she has been >involved in suppressing anyone's voice. We both attend most >members' meetings at the Seattle lodge, we are both on the >board, and we frequently disagree, but I have never seen a sign >of her trying to suppress anything I (or anyone else) wanted to >say, but just the opposite. She has gone out of her way to >encourage me. JHE Yes, Willamay has a real talent for helping people to find their potential and empowering them into action. I think that most all of the people who are or who have been in this inner circle have been exceptional in different ways. But my experience has been that what these people do in a social situation, or in a Lodge meeting does not tell me very much about what they do behind closed doors when they are making decisions for the TS. My experience is that everyone has a good side and a dark side. Sometimes we get to know one of these sides for better or worse, then many years later discover that they have another side too. TR >I know little of the politics of the TS, but I find it easy to >believe that these people have the power that you say they do. >But why is that considered to be a problem? The only >alternative to someone having power is to not have an >organization at all. That power can be abused does not mean >that it is not a net gain. My impression so far from the >comments on this list is that the very existence of power, not >how it is used, is what is being criticized. If Theosophy does >not stand for some ideas and reject others, the word "Theosophy" >is meaningless. JHE The Theosophical Society was founded as a democratic organization. IMO, most of the dissatisfaction stems from those who feel that the bylaw changes over the past twenty years have been eroding the input that the members once had in this organization. If you are not politically involved, then these changes would not have any real effect upon you. But if you were one of the people primarily responsible for a Lodge, or if you were the President of a Federation, or if you had thoughts of running for a National Board position, then things would begin to look very different. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:36:08 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Sex or violence? Message-ID: <199612190236.TAA01220@snowden.micron.net> Doss wrote: >It was a very eye opening post. Most of the items you described are >things most of us know. As a matter of fact just this week in my city there >is a trial going on in which a rich and powerful 73 businessman is on >trial for performing oral sex on a 14 year old employee who was abandoned >by her parents and had been living with relatives and had to work for >such basic necessities like food and clothing. In such a situation she >was taken advantage of by this man. "performing oral sex?" - These terms, I find, are way too gentle. It steams me how in rape cases, people say the rapist "forced the woman to have sex" - excuse me, but rape is not sex, and sex is not rape. Rape is an assault, the only difference is the man uses his penis rather than a club, or a knife, or whatever (although rape can include all). Rape is an act of violence. "Performing oral sex" on a minor is also an act of violence. And a fourteen year old is a minor, still a child as far as I'm concerned. And, if guilty, the businessman is a pedophile. And children can be "taken advantage of" in all situations. . . I'm not attacking you as a person, Doss. It's just the terminology used here is often used to "minimize" unspeakable acts. . .and to "minimize" the trauma these victims have undergone. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 22:50:42 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: TS Corruption Message-ID: <32B8BB92.23FF@sprynet.com> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > BL > >Either John Sellon is still alive or my wife had lunch with a > >corpse a couple of weeks ago (and a still very sharp corpse, at > >that). Michael Sellon never lost his interest in the Society, > >and Peter Sellon is getting more involved. > > JHE > I'm glad to hear that John is in good health and the kids are > still involved. Actually it was Emily who I had in mind as being > deceased--or did I only imagine reading that obituary? Emily is definitely and unfortunately deceased; she is the one who brought my wife and myself into active membership in the Theosophical Society. 3 days before her death I had a 40 minute conversation with her on setting up the computer network at the New York Lodge. > BL > >In my opinion, the ES should be exactly what it was supposed to > >be in the first place, according to the person writing as K.H. > >(who may have actually been K.H.): A special section of the TS > >for people who wanted to live exclusively by the tenets of the > >Mahatmas, as opposed to people who wished to reach the Truth > >through their own religion (as everybody must do, according to > >the same letter). > > JHE > Which letter are you quoting Bart? Do you believe that the ES is > "exactly what it is supposed to be in the first place"? If not, > how is it different? Sigh. At 10:51 PM on a Wednesday, I don't have time to look it up; check out Kingsford, Anna in the index, and you'll find it, and a lot of other interesting stuff as well. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 22:55:59 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Left and Right and Vanguards Message-ID: <32B8BCCF.69F1@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Tom wrote: > > >I am not aware of the difference between communism and the left wing. > > The goal of communism is a "classless state." The goal of the left wing, > here in America, is to try and ensure that all people have food, clothing, > medical care - you know, those pesky things. The left wing does not espouse > a classless society. And yes, the left wing does believe that the > government is responsible for ensuring the "welfare" (gasp) of its citizens. Communism starts out with an excellent but flawed premise. The basic belief of communism is that everybody works as hard as they can, and everybody gets everything they need. There are a number of cases where communism has worked out, in some cases (such as some Roman Catholic monastic orders) for centuries. But Communism begins to fall apart as soon as one person says, "That person isn't working as hard as s/he can!" or "That person is getting more than s/he needs!". At that point a new job is created: Somebody who ensures that everybody is working as hard as they can and everybody gets what they need. And, of course, if you get on that person's bad side, suddenly you are getting more than you need and not working as hard as you can. And thus, Communism fails. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:36:09 -0800 (PST) From: James S Yungkans Subject: ES / TS Discussion Message-ID: <199612190436.UAA13109@sure.net> In answer to Jim Meier JM >1) I don't follow your statement (A) above; how do you come to that >conclusion of "entirely separate" from the text listed? JSY (quoting HPB) "From the very beginning it's [the E.S.'s] second rule stated, that the "esoteric section has no official or corporate connection with the Exoteric Society" I see no difficulty here. JM >2) "Theosophical doctrine (Dogma)...how you're using it" JSY I was referring to the Sum Total of the works based upon HPB's material (i.e. Globes, rounds, races, and the related presentations) as presented by the T.S. et all, including Blavatsky, Judge, Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, and Heindel, from among others, which is not presented by other philosophies in this manner. JM >3) The Besant timeframe that you listed brings up the division of the ES, >which correlates roughly to pre-Krishnamurti and post-Krishnamurti, yes? JSY No. The article I quoted was a response to an article, written by Annie Besant, that dated to an 1890 issue of Lucifer. In fact, to quote HPB again from the Febuary 1890 article "Needless to say that Mrs. Besant's article would not have appeared had I seen it before publication...Mrs. Besant would have done more wisely to have called her article "comments on the E.S. of the Theosophical Society and HPB" The concluding paragraph of the article shows the seriousness of the concerns regarding this issue in 1891: "All this is said earnestly and sincerely, but with some trepidation, the higher plane of carelessness not having been attained, and indifference to other's opinions not having been aquired. But when so prominent a member of our society [Annie Besant] as the author of "The Theosophical Society and H.P.B." propounds what appears to some of us dangerous doctorine, we have no right to be silent" (H.T. Patterson, F.T.S.) >4) ...others have pointed out the necessity of separating things ABOUT the ES > from things OF the ES. I would agree, except for the fact that the 'Thread' of this discussion appears to deal with the positions and dogma of the E.S. influencing both the actual albeit unpublished and unofficial position of the T.S., as well as influencing the operation of the T.S. at both National and International levels, with the associated charges of coruption, censorship, etc. To re-present the position of the article quoted: "The honest materialist, the honest agnostic, the honest spiritualist, the honest christian-scientist, the honest dogmatic christian, may be an honest disbeliever in HPB and the masters, and an honest member of the Theosophical Society too, provided he is elisted in the cause of humanity." If the T.S. administration is controlling what is taught/not taught in the lodges and study groups it stands in the way of the Second Object of the Society, as well as the position stated above. The discussions regarding the actions of the T.S. regarding dismissals due to the Bailey material would also be along this line, as this material is supposidly based, initially at least, on the ADAYR E.S. material of the 1920's (or so I've heard). Please do not forget that my post was in response to the statment made earlier that "according to the person writing as K.H.(who may have actually been K.H.): A special section of the TS" To this extent the E.S. should be no more than a lodge of the T.S. Bart, I also haven't been able to locate that letter. If it's in the 'Letters from the masters', could you provide a reference? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:28:54 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: > > Gertie, > > Don't shake it too hard. Remember the last time you did and your brain fell > out and we had a terrible time looking for it with that HUGE magnifying > glass. > > Chuck the Sadistic Heretic > I am speechless...which I guess means that my brain did fall out..and it can't get up! Send me a Clapper!!! Gertrude..the brainless...Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:30:50 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: > > No, but I'm going to enjoy watching someone's goose get cooked saturday. > > Chuck the Heretic > Oh Goodie!!! Do you mean that?? (Smiling with anticipation) Gertrude the horny Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 06:26:41 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <19961219062634.AAB26165@LOCALNAME> At 08:13 PM 12/18/96 +0000, April Joy wrote: >Why would I need to give 23 criticisms of women, when I was answering >your criticisms of them to begin with? You called women irrational, then >I gave examples of irrational acts by men. Which upsets you the most, >that someone dared to answer your criticisms with criticisms or that a >woman answered you in a logical manner? I see no evidence of my being upset about anything. All I did was ask a question which reflected my opinion about you as being sexist, which you confirmed. I do not see how it is logical of you to imply that you believe that men and women are equal, and then criticize men far more than you criticize women, and then say that I, who have criticized and praised them roughly equally, am sexist. >Sexism/Sexist = prejudice or discrimination based on sex. Objectivity = the ability to not let emotion interfere with a clear recognition of facts. >To believe that men are superior to women means you do not believe they >are equal. Which means you do not believe in equality of the sexs, which >is sexist. Your premises are so obviously wrong that you could not have arrived at them objectively. >Women are neither superior or inferior to men. We are equal. We are both >capable of doing the same jobs. Would you say that it is sexist discrimination that no women play in the National Football League and that no men have babies? Would you rather have your country be defended by a predominantly female army? Do you think society would be no worse if men took women's place as the predominant raiser of children? >Just three years ago I lost a job because a man thought the way you do. He probably thought just the way you think I think, which was unfair of him. >I lost another job because I had a baby and the boss thought it would >interfer with my work. Why do you believe he was wrong? >These are just a few of the problems that women face every day due to a >belief that women are inferior so it doesn't matter how you treat them. The number of your criticisms of men have approximately doubled, and you still have yet to criticize women. Are you still saying that you consider men to be women's equals? >Women need to stand up to people like you Tom who are deteremined to >keep those stereotypes alive. Men need to stand up to women like you who are determined to see sexism where it doesn't exist, just because some men are sexist. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 07:16:05 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <19961219071554.AAA11017@LOCALNAME> At 12:57 AM 12/19/96 +0000, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: >---------- >> From: April Joy > >> These are just a few of the problems that women face every day due to a >> belief that women are inferior so it doesn't matter how you treat them. If women have it so much worse than men do, why do they live longer? Or is it sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is different? >After reading this post, I have come to conclusion that if we meet Tom or >anyone like him in cyberspace, we should rhetorically shoot and aim with >the best posts we can write. These type of weak and low-esteem characters who use >women, or any one else, to bolster their suffering egos, are holding back the rest of >humanity. I agree. The type of attitudes described in April Joy's post should be opposed as being anti-brotherhood and untheosophical. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 03:27:02 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <961219004422_2052466500@emout17.mail.aol.com> Gertrude speechless! Mirabile dictu! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 03:27:59 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: <961219004610_743174856@emout17.mail.aol.com> Do I mean it? Of course I do, barring snow storm. Chuck the Heretic And I'll bet everyone on the list is very confused by this exchange! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:17:01 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Message-ID: >Gertie, >Don't shake it too hard. Remember the last time you did and your brain fell >out and we had a terrible time looking for it with that HUGE magnifying >glass. >Chuck the Sadistic Heretic It's not how big it is. It's how you use it. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:16:59 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: >Gertie, >Don't shake it too hard. Remember the last time you did and your brain fell >out and we had a terrible time looking for it with that HUGE magnifying >glass. >Chuck the Sadistic Heretic It's not how big it is, it's how you use it. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 19 05:01:54 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Left and Right and Vanguards Message-ID: <199612191001.FAA04600@envirolink.org> Bart Lidofsky writes: >kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Communism starts out with an excellent but flawed premise. The basic >belief of communism is that everybody works as hard as they can, and >everybody gets everything they need. There are a number of cases where >communism has worked out, in some cases (such as some Roman Catholic >monastic orders) for centuries. But Communism begins to fall apart as >soon as one person says, "That person isn't working as hard as s/he >can!" or "That person is getting more than s/he needs!". At that point a >new job is created: Somebody who ensures that everybody is working as >hard as they can and everybody gets what they need. And, of course, if >you get on that person's bad side, suddenly you are getting more than >you need and not working as hard as you can. And thus, Communism fails. > > Bart Lidofsky It is true that Communism is a flawed system, but in true communism, your above example (although hinting at the major flaw of heirarchy and prestige) can be easily disregarded. If the person who judged these people in this way relied solely upon them for his/her own welfare, he would not be so quick to "abolish" them. Just my $.02. Basically, with both socialism and communism, the flaw is the fact that there is a government, and if it didn't have a government, it would be anarchy, which is a flaw in itself. Catch 22. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 19 05:11:25 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: <199612191011.FAA04840@envirolink.org> Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >Do I mean it? > >Of course I do, barring snow storm. > >Chuck the Heretic > >And I'll bet everyone on the list is very confused by this exchange! > I understand perfectly. Yesterday, you were at the grocery store solely to buy a cream-filled doughnut, and Gertrude was purchasing a Quad-mocha. When Felix arrived, it was all over. You never got your doughnut, and Gertie went up into space with an alien. Did I get that right? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 02:25:19 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Karma and the cosmos Message-ID: >I would suggest that perhaps there is some type of symbology going on >in the outer world that reflects what is happening in one's inner world. >Ray Grasse once had a lecture at Olcott where he talked about a friend >who suddenly was finding dead birds wherever he went. >I've personally experienced being surrounded by a people with a >particular sun sign at different times in my life. Right now, I seem to >know a lot of Geminis, whereas in college I was hanging out with a >lot of Capricorns. I hypothesize that I need that particular energy at >that particular time and attract these people to me. >Perhaps the letter "M" has some vibrational quality and significance >that appeals to you. >-Ann E. Bermingham As far as symbology, what could the letter "M" possibly mean? That I like to eat M&Ms? I hope it doesn't mean masochist. As far as vibrational quality, it will have to be that I emit vibrations that attract people with the letter "M". For every single one of them, they were the ones initiating conversations with me. Also, those people were all huge influences in the direction of my life, starting with the only non-proper name "Mom." After that, it was two sisters, M and M, who inspired me to further my education beyond high school and showed me the means to do it; M, my first boyfriend, who taught me a big lesson on never tolerating other's drug habits and on being discerning regarding who I hang out with (though I may sometimes sound harsh in my writing, I'm actually a pussycat who accepts practically everybody and their idiosyncracies.); M, my second boyfriend who encouraged me to change from studying engineering to art, my true interest; M, my next best friend, who introduced me to New Age concepts and the beauty of womanhood and aging (she is over 20 years older than me); and finally Mark, who introduced me to theosophical concepts, graphics, and poetry. I'd say that's a lot of M's. Presently, I'm surrounded by Tauruses. Being a restless Leo, that's settled me down quite a bit. I used to strive for some far off concept, but now I'm more of a homey type. The bad part of that is that sometimes I feel like running off and joining the Peace Corp. I was looking through the Philosophy section of a bookstore today, and skimmed through a book on reasoning. The author was trying to debunk some of the astrological concepts. He said that our calendar is based on ancient time, and that the planets and their alignments have changed quite a bit since that time. That means that we are supposed to deduct 11 days from each astrological sign to get our true sign. That wouldn't affect me, since I can gain or lose 11 days and still be a Leo. For all the sayings that astrologists look accurate because they were being very general, I feel that there definitely is something to astrology. I'm not sure about studying day to day astrology advise, but as far as personality characteristics, I definitely am very Leo. If I did not see any of the sign headings, I could still pick out the section that describes my tendencies. The author claims that astrologists still use the concept of the sun and the moon revolving around us. He also gave examples of how little planets' magnetisms affect us by stating that a person standing next to you emits more magnetism than the planets. From what I gather, theosophical concept of the cosmos is pretty much in tune with present scientific point of view. The concept of the twelve fohatic magnetisms, I think, is quite different than the magnetism the author had in mind, as much as there is more to the planets than just matter and space. I wonder whether you could shed some light on this. I am presently trying to comprehend the very complex theosophical concept of the cosmos. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 06:30:34 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Sex or violence? Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > I'm not attacking you as a person, Doss. It's just the terminology used > here is often used to "minimize" unspeakable acts. . .and to "minimize" the > trauma these victims have undergone. > > Kym I understand. ..MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:49:01 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <199612191320.IAA18155@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: m.k. ramadoss > > It is my hope that one of these days men wisen up and treat > women in a kinder and gentler and responsible manner. Only then men can > stand up with their heads high and a clear conscience. This is not to say > that there are no men around who live up to very high standards when > dealing with women. > My hat is off to you, Doss. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:02:07 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > ---------- > > From: m.k. ramadoss > > > > It is my hope that one of these days men wisen up and treat > > women in a kinder and gentler and responsible manner. Only then men can > > stand up with their heads high and a clear conscience. This is not to say > > > that there are no men around who live up to very high standards when > > dealing with women. > > > My hat is off to you, Doss. > > -Ann E. Bermingham Ann: Thanks for your msg. If a little bit of T/theosophy is put into action by the masses, the world would be a better world. That is the ideal, as I understand it, that the Real Founders were gunning for when They launched TS and Theosophy. So glad am I that I am exposed to T/t that I am learning everyday. With support and encouragement of many here, those who are vocal and those lurking, I am emboldened to do my little bit. Beating my own drums (which I normally don't like - I like others beating my drums - it makes life easier): I had this wonderful opportunity to help the indigent, homeless, poor and uninsured who use our local County Hospital Resources. We have a walk-in clinic which is operational 365 days of the year and 12 hours a/day. Recently, the Board which runs the Hospital wanted to shut it down and ration access by forcing them to use a telephone call in appointment system. The proposal was not given much publicity and was hidden in the budget in a single line. Fortunately a friend of mine casually told me a couple of days before the budget was due for approval - rubber stamp - by the County Commissioners. I thought this is an issue that affects the needy and poor and none of them is capable of speaking up and communicating with the powers. I appeared before the county commissioners and highlighted the problem and I was the only one who spoke on this issue. As a result, the budget was put on hold and a public hearing was setup. With one days notice 150 people turned out and there were angry feedback. When the issue came back to the county commissioners, in spite of the feedback, the Board of the Hospital refused to make any changes -- as they knew there was majority support in the County Commissioners -- and the budget was passed. The vote was on party lines - three Republicans (representing the affluent section of the city) voted for it and two Democrats (representing the poorer segment of the city and from which most of the patients walk-in) opposed to it. The result is that the walk-in will be shut down on 3/31/97. While the issue was lost, something was gained. The issue was brought to attention of the public and we hope it would become a politically sensitive issue in the near future as the shut down runs into problems. Here again, the *Right* won the day and *Left* lost the day. Thought I should share this exciting 10 day venture. MKRamadoss (Have been too busy dealing with the above on the physical plane and did not have time to travel in astral, mental, monadic, atmic,logosic planes etc.!!!) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 96 14:44:36 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Re: THEOS-ROOTS digest 245 Message-ID: <199612181944.OAA00380@leo.vsla.edu> According to theos-roots@vnet.net: > JHE > I don't understand. I pulled you into a debate with Caldwell by > posting my remarks on theos-l, because it was "roots material"? > Don't most subscribers get all theos-xxxx anyway? Or is this all > based upon some kind of agreement between you two? No, I just wasn't on roots because I didn't want to be harassed, but when I saw the exchange on theos-l the knowledge of what was being said on roots dragged me in. > > >"debunking the thesis of Johnson," when in fact he was > >attacking just two out of 32 proposed identifications of > >Masters, and did not even identify "the thesis" he was > >allegedly debunking. > > JHE > Fact? Sounds like the real "fact" is that you and Dan just see > his essay differently. He acknowledges he's only dealing with two out of the 32, and nowhere *in* the piece claims to be debunking anything called "the thesis." That claim only appeared later. So the number of Masters discussed in his piece and the claims made in it are indeed a matter of fact. The disagreement appears to be about what can be claimed to have been accomplished after the fact. (Surprise!). > > JHE > Nor was mine. My point was that critical essays always deal with > aspects of a work--never with the entire thing. Caldwell > challenged your thesis by bringing into question selected points. > This is standard operating procedure. As with Algeo, I find my rebuttal to Daniel taking up just about half the length of the original critique. So your SOP is true enough both ways. The problem, as I see it, is when a critic writes, in essence, "There are some good things and some bad things about this book. I'll grudgingly acknowledge the good things in one paragraph, even if they constitute 90% of the book (i.e. in my case the historical and biographical information) and then spend 90% of my essay attacking the 10% of the book that I hate." There's not an ethical system in the world that could justify that kind of negativity, AFAIK. > snip > academic journals either. Caldwell's essay and Algeo's extended > essay published in Theosophical History were in the style of > critical essays published for academic journals. So we are > talking about apples and oranges here. I am somewhat familiar with such essays as well, and can only say that I agree with Tim Maroney about the unacceptability of Daniel's tone in any scholarly setting. You are right about Algeo though; the "take no hostages" approach in its latter portions is at least balanced by an objective first half. He did indeed fall within the guidelines of a *certain* kind of academic writing. But no such attack has ever appeared in *Theosophical History* on anyone else's book. (My Richard-Nafarre piece made accusations of plagiarism, which is pretty damning, but was otherwise balanced-- and quite brief.) Perhaps if TH had previously run an ordinary scholarly review of TMR (say like Mike Ashcraft's of Initiates, which I have no objection to), it wouldn't look so odd to give Algeo 15 pages in which to attack relentlessly. As you may know, the viciousness of what Algeo did was more in the behind-the-scenes manoevring than in the review itself. He sent me supportive, friendly, encouraging email just a few weeks before the positive Quest review came out. The gist then was "Don't be bothered by all these attackers; they don't amount to a hill of beans." When I emailed him to express my appreciation for Joy's review, he replied that his own opinion was less favorable, but that he was open to discussing it with me. I wrote one friendly response to some of his points, and then got a very short snippy answer, telling me he was writing two negative reviews and making it quite clear that he wanted absolutely nothing to do with me. The TH review contains-- no, is in fact largely based on-- a distortion of something I wrote to him in good faith thinking he was really open to discussion. As it turns out, he was just drawing me out to try to get something to use against me. I've never had someone's tone change from cordial to cool to hostile in the course of 6 weeks before! Which relates to my naivete, see below. > >lucky target of that one was!) > > JHE > Who? me > > JHE > You mean compared to reviews written for the popular media? That > is mixing apples and oranges again. I have read every review that has ever appeared in TH, the journal in which Algeo reviewed me. That's not just comparing apples to apples, it's the same apple! > JHE > If I'm not mistaken, William and Loftus Hare were originally > Theosophists. I have a couple of books by written Theosophists > dedicated to criticizing their book "Who Wrote the Mahatma > Letters?". I recall other instances too, but they were shorter > than 15 pages. They were entirely devoting themselves to attacking HPB, which I was not. But that's not in the last 50 years anyhow-- or just barely. I mention that timeline because in CWL's lifetime God only knows how long some of the attacks were-- from Stokes, for example. > > JHE > What month and year of "The Theosophist" did it appear? Sounds > like the same basic kind of strategy they used on Tillett. Don't know, it was reprinted online and jem told me it had originally been in the Theosophist. "The Masters Revealed" by Dara Eklund, sometime early this year I guess. With Tillett they didn't run a non-review called "The Elder Brother" that was devoted to saying no one could possibly know whether or not CWL was a pederast unless they were clairvoyant-- which would be a parallel to Dara's approach. They just referred to "a book" that was all wrong. But again, Tillett was not a Theosophist. > > KPJ > >2. Has any Theosophical book in the last 50 years been attacked > >as ferociously and longwindedly as mine by Algeo and Caldwell? > > JHE > Not that I know of. How is this question relevant? You are telling me there is nothing unusual about their treatment of my book, and I'm telling you it's not just unusual but unprecedented to the best of my knowledge. > JHE > I wasn't aware that Caldwell published his critical essay in a > Theosophical magazine. I knew that Algeo published a book review > "The American Theosophist." But it has been the much stronger > and extensive review that he published for "Theosophical History" > (an academic journal) that I thought you are complaining about. Same tone, different length. > > JHE > Maybe it is a subjective and inaccurate observation on my part, > but it seems to me that the overwhelming vast majority of your Good God! Maybe 25%! > posts, from the time you stated on theos-l, have been about your > book; about defending your book; about reviews of your book; or > about how you feel about being "attacked" concerning your book; quotes unnecessary > about positive reviews on your book; about experiences with > theosophists you have had concerning your book; about how > different people at A.R.E. are concerning your book etc. You talk as if I'd written one rather than four. Nobody at A.R.E. knows or cares anything about my Theosophy books. If I'm > wrong, perhaps someone else who has been following your posts can > set me straight. Doubt they will, but you seem to ignore the 75% of my posts that have had nothing to do with that. Remember that the Algeo shit didn't hit the fan until the summer of 1995, and probably 75% of my total posts were before that happened. But even since then, less than half have been as you describe. > Yes, I recall. But it wasn't "criticism" but meant to be > friendly advice. At the time, you had already been well engaged > with Caldwell, then suddenly you wanted to pull out in the middle > of the debate. I didn't think that looked good on your part. I > thought you should have finished it. Wait a minute! Who defines "middle of the debate"? You are giving the indefatigable Caldwell exclusive right to do so. I started answering him without any idea that he'd continue to escalate post after post, never letting up. Finished it? How could *I* have finished it when you are giving my attacker the exclusive right to decide when to stop? At the time you said I should go on until he was exhausted or satisfied. And he never would have been, and hasn't to this day. > > I looks like it took you a little longer to get over your > naivete. Remember that ISM came out in 1990 and it was five years later that the strong reaction came to hypotheses that had originally been in that first book. Since in TMR I really tried to trim my sails and be less speculative, less likely to offend, it was a shock that *that* was the book that unleashed the deluge. Plus, some of my explorations about the Masters were in print as early as 1986. So rather than me taking a long time to get over my naivete, it might be fairer to say it took the TS orthodoxy a very long time to decide to go for the jugular. > > JHE > My point was that TMR attacked a central dogma of the ES. Your > hurt reactions to TS members who have attacked you (I'm not > talking about Caldwell and Algeo now) strikes me a very naive. Actually, ULT members have been the worst. > I predicted that if you attack the central dogma of the A.R.E. > inner circle (whatever that is), you will get the same treatment. > I stand by that prediction. > They seem not to have one. How's that for naivete? Or maybe I'd offend them by saying that Cayce was not really clairvoyant-- but I don't believe that. > > JHE > I'm glad that you know better now. But I feel bad for you that > it was such a long and painful struggle. I take it from the > above that we are now ex-friends. I'm very sorry to learn this. > That was my conclusion when you ceased private communication with me 18 months ago, and said you wouldn't even read email I sent you. I was very sorry then that you chose to say/do that, but don't know how to be friends with someone who won't talk to me. If you have changed your mind, please let me know privately and I'll be glad to resume friendship with you. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:08:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY: A Core Library of Recommended Reading Message-ID: <199612190208.TAA06338@mailhost.azstarnet.com> ************************************************************* H.P. BLAVATSKY AND THEOSOPHY: A Core Library of Recommended Reading (All books are currently in print as of 12/96. Please e-mail us for price and ordering information. We will gladly suggest various courses of reading.) ************************************************************* Compiled by Daniel H. Caldwell Issued by The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW URL address: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/ E-mail address: blafoun@azstarnet.com ************************************************************ "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...[is]...the most insightful and comprehensive teacher of esoteric philosophy in modern times...." Shirley Nicholson. Ancient Wisdom, Modern Insight. 1985. "...Madame Blavatsky...stands out as the fountainhead of modern occult thought...." J. Gordon Melton, Jerome Clark and Aidan A. Kelly. New Age Almanac. 1991. "Helena Petrovna Blavatsky...is surely among the most original and perceptive minds of her time....[In her two major books]....lies...the first philosophy of psychic and spiritual evolution to appear in the modern West...." Theodore Roszak. The Unfinished Animal. 1975. ************************************************************ This suggested reading list is divided into five bookshelves: **An Introduction to the Life and Influence of Madame Blavatsky **An Introduction to Theosophy by several modern writers **An Classical Introduction to Theosophy by H.P. Blavatsky, A.P. Sinnett and Constance Wachtmeister **Others Studies on Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky **The Writings of H.P. Blavatsky and the Mahatmas ____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 1: An Introduction to the Life and Influence of Madame Blavatsky (1) When Daylight Comes: Biography of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. By Howard Murphet. (2) The Occult World of Madame Blavatsky: Reminiscences And Impressions by Those Who Knew Her. Compiled and edited by Daniel H. Caldwell (3) H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine": Commentaries on Her Contributions to World Thought. Edited by Virginia Hanson. (4) HPB: The Extraordinary Life and Influence of Helena Blavatsky, Founder of the Modern Theosophical Movement. By Sylvia Cranston. (5) The Real H.P. Blavatsky: A Study of Theosophy, and a Memoir of a Great Soul. By William Kingsland. _____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 2: An Introduction to Theosophy by several modern authors (6) An Introduction to Esoteric Principles: A Study Guide. By William Doss McDavid. (7) Deity, Cosmos and Man: An Outline of Esoteric Science. By Geoffrey A. Farthing. (8) Ancient Wisdom---Modern Insight. By Shirley Nicholson. (9) The Divine Plan: Written in the Form of a Commentary on H.P. Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine." By Geoffrey A. Barborka. ____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 3: An Classical Introduction to Theosophy by H.P. Blavatsky, A.P. Sinnett and Constance Wachtmeister (10) An Invitation to "The Secret Doctrine." By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP. (11) The Occult World. By A.P. Sinnett. TPH edition. (12) Esoteric Buddhism. By A.P. Sinnett. Wizards Bookshelf edition. (13) The Key to Theosophy. By H.P. Blavatsky. With Glossary. TPH edition. (14) Spiritual Evolution: Articles by H.P. Blavatsky. TC (15) Teachers and Disciples: Articles by H.P. Blavatsky. TC (16) The Voice of The Silence: Being Chosen Fragments from the "Book of The Golden Precepts" for the Daily Use of Lanoos (Disciples). Translated and Annotated by "H.P.B." TUP edition. (17) Reminiscences of H.P. Blavatsky and "The Secret Doctrine." By Countess Constance Wachtmeister and others. (18) An Abridgement of "The Secret Doctrine." By H.P. Blavatsky. Edited by Elizabeth Preston and Christmas Humphreys. (19) H.P. Blavatsky Teaches: An Anthology. Compiled by Michael Gomes. _______________________________________________________ Bookshelf 4: Others Studies on Theosophy and Madame Blavatsky (20) An Inquiry into the Nature of Mind. By Adam Warcup. (21) Exploring the Great Beyond: A Survey of the Field of the Extraordinary. By Geoffrey A. Farthing. (22) When We Die: A Description of the After-Death States and Processes. By Geoffrey A. Farthing. PLP. (23) Reincarnation: A New Horizon in Science, Religion and Society. By Sylvia Cranston and Carey Williams. TUP. (24) Reincarnation, the Phoenix Fire Mystery: An East-West Dialogue on Death, and Rebirth from the Worlds of Religion, Science, Psychology, Philosophy, Art, and Literature, and from Great Thinkers of the Past and Present. Compiled and Edited by Joseph Head and S.L. Cranston. TUP. (25) Concentration and Meditation: A Manual of Mind Development. By Christmas Humphreys. (26) Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures & Universal Mystery Language of Myth and Symbol. By Henry Travers Edge. PLP. (27) The Gnosis or Ancient Wisdom in the Christian Scriptures. By William Kingsland. (28) The Cosmic Womb: An Interpretation of Man's Relationship to the Infinite. By Arthur W. Osborn. (29) The Divine Plan by Geoffrey A. Barborka. (30) Man, The Measure of All Things: In the Stanzas of Dzyan. By Sri Krishna Prem and Sri Madhava Ashish. (31) Man, God and the Universe. By I.K. Taimni. (32) The Mathematics of the Cosmic Mind: A Study in Mathematical Symbolism. by L. Gordon Plummer. (33) Cyclic Evolution: A Theosophical View. By Adam Warcup. (34) Archaic History of the Human Race: As Recorded in "The Secret Doctrine" By H.P. Blavatsky. By Gertrude W. van Pelt. PLP. (35) The Peopling of the Earth. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (36) The Story of Human Evolution. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (37) The Dawning of the Theosophical Movement. By Michael Gomes. (38) H.P. Blavatsky, Tibet and Tulku. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (39) The Hall of Magic Mirrors. By Victor A. Endersby. (40) Obituary: The "Hodgson Report " on Madame Blavatsky: Re-Examination Discredits the Major Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky. By Adlai W. Waterman. BF. (41) Theosophy: A Modern Revival of Ancient Wisdom. By Alvin Boyd Kuhn. (42) Masters and Men: The Human Story in The Mahatma Letters. By Virginia Hanson. (43) The Mahatmas and Their Letters. By Geoffrey A. Barborka. (44) The Readers Guide to "The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett." Compiled and Edited by George E. Linton and Virginia Hanson. Second edition. ____________________________________________________ Bookshelf 5: The Writings of H.P. Blavatsky and the Mahatmas (45) Isis Unveiled. By H.P. Blavatsky. TC Facsimile of the Original Edition. 2 volumes bound in one volume. (46) Isis Unveiled. By H.P. Blavatsky. Edited by Boris de Zirkoff. TPH edition. 2 volumes. (47) The Secret Doctrine. By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP Facsimile of the Original Edition. 2 volumes. (48) Index to "The Secret Doctrine." TC. (49) The Secret Doctrine. By H.P. Blavatsky. Edited by Boris de Zirkoff. TPH edition. 3 volumes. Volume 3 is an index volume. (50) The Key to Theosophy. By H.P. Blavatsky. With Glossary. TUP edition. (51) The Voice of the Silence. By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP edition. Also available as a cassette. (52) The Voice of the Silence. By H.P. Blavatsky. With Historical Introduction and Index by Boris de Zirkoff. TPH edition. (53) Secret Doctrine Commentary, Stanzas I-IV: Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge. By H.P. Blavatsky. TUP edition. (54) The Theosophical Glossary. By H.P. Blavatsky. TC edition. (55) "The Esoteric Instructions." By H.P. Blavatsky. TPH, Collected Writings, Vol. 12 (56) The Inner Group Teachings of H.P. Blavatsky. Second edition. PLP (57) Theosophical Articles. By H.P. Blavatsky. 3 volumes. TC. (58) A Modern Panarion: A Collection of Fugitive Fragments from the Pen of H.P. Blavatsky. TC (59) The Collected Writings. By H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and Edited by By Boris de Zirkoff. 15 volumes. Vol. 15 is an index volume. TPH. (60) The New Testament Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (61) The Vedanta Commentaries of H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (62) H.P. Blavatsky on the Gnostics. Compiled and Annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (63) The Buddhism of H.P. Blavatsky. Compiled and annotated by H.J. Spierenburg. PLP (64) Glyphs and Symbols. By H.P. Blavatsky. CGP (65) The Letters of H.P. Blavatsky to A.P. Sinnett. Compiled by A. Trevor Barker. TUP (66) H.P.B. Speaks. 2 volumes. TPH. (67) From the Caves and Jungles of Hindostan. By H.P. Blavatsky. TPH (68) The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. [In Chronological Sequence]. Arranged and edited by Vicente Hao Chin, Jr. [Fourth edition.] TPH Philippines. (69) The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett. Facsimile of 2nd Edition. Paparback. TUP. (70) Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom. 2 volumes. Transcribed and edited by C. Jinarajadasa. TPH. ***************************************************************** Compiled 12/96 ***************************************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:41:58 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Theos-Roots digest 245 Message-ID: <9612190241.AA31531@toto.csustan.edu> KPJ > >"debunking the thesis of Johnson," when in fact he was > >attacking just two out of 32 proposed identifications of > >Masters, and did not even identify "the thesis" he was > >allegedly debunking. > > JHE > Fact? Sounds like the real "fact" is that you and Dan just see > his essay differently. KPJ He acknowledges he's only dealing with two out of the 32, and nowhere *in* the piece claims to be debunking anything called "the thesis." That claim only appeared later. So the number of Masters discussed in his piece and the claims made in it are indeed a matter of fact. The disagreement appears to be about what can be claimed to have been accomplished after the fact. (Surprise!). JHE Yes. As I said above, it sounds like the real "fact" is that you and Dan see his essay differently. .................... > JHE > Nor was mine. My point was that critical essays always deal > with aspects of a work--never with the entire thing. Caldwell > challenged your thesis by bringing into question selected > points. This is standard operating procedure. KPJ As with Algeo, I find my rebuttal to Daniel taking up just about half the length of the original critique. So your SOP is true enough both ways. The problem, as I see it, is when a critic writes, in essence, "There are some good things and some bad things about this book. I'll grudgingly acknowledge the good things in one paragraph, even if they constitute 90% of the book (i.e. in my case the historical and biographical information) and then spend 90% of my essay attacking the 10% of the book that I hate." There's not an ethical system in the world that could justify that kind of negativity, AFAIK. JHE I'm not aware of any "ethical" standards concerning what percentage a critical writer is supposed to spend upon what aspect of a book, or how negative or positive it must be. But my experience reading critical essays tells me that Algeo's and Caldwell's were well within what is ordinarily done. ..................... JHE snip > academic journals either. Caldwell's essay and Algeo's > extended essay published in Theosophical History were in the > style of critical essays published for academic journals. So > we are talking about apples and oranges here. KPJ I am somewhat familiar with such essays as well, and can only say that I agree with Tim Maroney about the unacceptability of Daniel's tone in any scholarly setting. You are right about Algeo though; the "take no hostages" approach in its latter portions is at least balanced by an objective first half. He did indeed fall within the guidelines of a *certain* kind of academic writing. But no such attack has ever appeared in *Theosophical History* on anyone else's book. [snip] JHE The book I reviewed in April in TH received a very angry reply from the author. This and my answer will be in the coming issue. I think part of the problem you are discussing here concerns expectations of what a review in an academic journal should be like; perhaps that it should inform the reader of the book's main thesis and perhaps how it is argued; perhaps that it should have a balance of complementary and uncomplimentary things to say-- preferably for the author, mostly complementary etc. The truth is that there are no rules. I'm sure that in your *Library Journal* there is a form, because the reviewer is trying to give the book buyer an idea of what the book is about. But no such rules exist in academic discourse. The entire review could be about how the book is bound or the quality of the illustrations. It could discuss a minor theme and ignore the major one etc. KPJ As you may know, the viciousness of what Algeo did was more in the behind-the-scenes manoevring than in the review itself. He sent me supportive, friendly, encouraging email just a few weeks before the positive Quest review came out. The gist then was "Don't be bothered by all these attackers; they don't amount to a hill of beans." When I emailed him to express my appreciation for Joy's review, he replied that his own opinion was less favorable, but that he was open to discussing it with me. I wrote one friendly response to some of his points, and then got a very short snippy answer, telling me he was writing two negative reviews and making it quite clear that he wanted absolutely nothing to do with me. The TH review contains-- no, is in fact largely based on-- a distortion of something I wrote to him in good faith thinking he was really open to discussion. As it turns out, he was just drawing me out to try to get something to use against me. I've never had someone's tone change from cordial to cool to hostile in the course of 6 weeks before! Which relates to my naivete, see below. JHE I know nothing of this. I know that John is a political animal. On the other hand, it seems that if John wanted to do a negative review, he is quite capable of doing it without using any information you might have supplied him. ........................ KPJ >>1. Has any national president of the TSA ever published a 15 >>page attack on a book by a member of this section? On any book >>at all? > JHE > If I'm not mistaken, William and Loftus Hare were originally > Theosophists. I have a couple of books by written Theosophists > dedicated to criticizing their book "Who Wrote the Mahatma > Letters?". I recall other instances too, but they were shorter > than 15 pages. KPJ They were entirely devoting themselves to attacking HPB, which I was not. JHE Indirectly. More to the theme of *Who Wrote the Mahatma Letters?*, they were showing the ES beliefs concerning the Mahatmas to be a myth. Sound familiar? KPJ But that's not in the last 50 years anyhow-- or just barely. I mention that timeline because in CWL's lifetime God only knows how long some of the attacks were-- from Stokes, for example. JHE Your original question above did not mention anything about 50 years. That was in your third (numbered "2.") question, which I answered separately. Nor did your original question limit the subject matter of the book. I'm not sure why you think these new parameters to your original question are relevant anyway--Stokes' articles notwithstanding. Again, in response to your original question above: There have been cases in the past were members of the TS wrote things that the TS took to be negative or damning, and TS officials, including Presidents wrote 15 or more page answers to the perceived negative information in those publications. I think the Hare Brother's book might be especially relevant in your case, because like your book, they threw question upon the dogmatic party line ES beliefs concerning the Mahatmas, and like your book, they received extensive replies from a TS President. In their case, it was from Jinarajadasa, and in yours, from Algeo. Though you may not find significance here, I do. ........................ > KPJ > >2. Has any Theosophical book in the last 50 years been attacked > >as ferociously and longwindedly as mine by Algeo and Caldwell? > > JHE > Not that I know of. How is this question relevant? KPJ You are telling me there is nothing unusual about their treatment of my book, and I'm telling you it's not just unusual but unprecedented to the best of my knowledge. JHE I disagree. My reasons already given above. ..................................... > JHE > My point was that TMR attacked a central dogma of the ES. Your > hurt reactions to TS members who have attacked you (I'm not > talking about Caldwell and Algeo now) strikes me a very naive. KPJ Actually, ULT members have been the worst. JHE That surprised you?! I bet I can tell you the names of the ULT members who gave you the most flack. ........................................... JHE > Yes, I recall. But it wasn't "criticism" but meant to be > friendly advice. At the time, you had already been well > engaged with Caldwell, then suddenly you wanted to pull out in > the middle of the debate. I didn't think that looked good on > your part. I thought you should have finished it. KPJ Wait a minute! Who defines "middle of the debate"? You are giving the indefatigable Caldwell exclusive right to do so. I started answering him without any idea that he'd continue to escalate post after post, never letting up. Finished it? How could *I* have finished it when you are giving my attacker the exclusive right to decide when to stop? At the time you said I should go on until he was exhausted or satisfied. And he never would have been, and hasn't to this day. JHE I define "middle" is that part that comes between the beginning and the end. That is my definition. I don't know Caldwell's, but I'm not giving him the right to define it for me or you anyway. I know that you still insist that Caldwell would never finish. I still disagree. Again, my point is that when engaged in a debate, it doesn't look good to suddenly pull out in the middle. My philosophy is either to stay out of it in the first place, or dig in to finish it. That is my philosophy, and that was my advice to you, which you were free to take or leave. You left it. So that's OK too. Every decision has consequences. Like everyone else in this world, you make your decisions and you live with their consequences. .................................. JHE > I predicted that if you attack the central dogma of the A.R.E. > inner circle (whatever that is), you will get the same > treatment. I stand by that prediction. > KPJ They seem not to have one. How's that for naivete? JHE An outstanding demonstration of it! ......................... > JHE > I'm glad that you know better now. But I feel bad for you that > it was such a long and painful struggle. I take it from the > above that we are now ex-friends. I'm very sorry to learn > this. KPJ That was my conclusion when you ceased private communication with me 18 months ago, and said you wouldn't even read email I sent you. JHE I have no memory of this. Does this have anything to do with the time you accused me of telling people not to read your book? As I recall, that was you breaking off the friendship. I emailed John Shafer about this, as I said that I would do. Shafer said that you had already contacted him and that he was resolving it with you. I called Brett about it too. He was very clear that I never said or intimated such a thing to him. Further, he got real insulted that you would think that I or anyone else could tell him what to read or not to read. But knowing Brett, I expected that he would feel that way. With two strikes out of three against you, I didn't bother to ask Coker. But Coker's story was already second hand anyway. Right? KPJ I was very sorry then that you chose to say/do that, but don't know how to be friends with someone who won't talk to me. If you have changed your mind, please let me know privately and I'll be glad to resume friendship with you. JHE Won't talk to you? What have we been doing for the last couple of days? Best Jerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:16:29 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Sexism Message-ID: In all honesty and taking the Triaists lead, I will have to give another twist to sexism. It is still sexism, and I think it is unfortunate that this is the way the real world is. All the way until I graduated from high school, I was very skinny, thin boned and lanky, and wearing awful dark-framed coke-bottle military glasses. My parents had to support 4 children on a small income. Mom would buy a whole bolt of cloth on sale and make clothes for all of us. There's this funny picture that I call The Plaid Family. My mom had made red plaid shirts for my stepdad and brother, plaid dresses for my sisters and herself. We were all standing in front of the pineapple field in Hawaii. If my clothes weren't home made by an earnest mother (who's no couturier, I think that's why I learned to sew couture quality clothes), then it was purchased from a thrift shop. Every few months, the children would line up for their homemade haircut by that all-purpose person, mom. Needless to say, I was no stylish beauty queen. Boys would call me "ugly", or pick on me because I was shy. I did not date until I was in college. I did not go to my high school prom. To compensate, I was a total bookworm and intellectual. I did not go to the lunchroom because it was painful to sit alone in the cafeteria, or to have to ask someone you don't know whether you can sit next to them. I lived in the library and joined a contest on who read the most library books. I filled the form front and back of all the books I've read at the library. Surprisingly, I didn't win. There's another soul more unfortunate than I. When I entered college, I replaced the glasses with contact lenses. My lanky form began to fill out. What formerly was emaciation turned into feminine lean gracefulness. I started getting hoots and hollers. My chemistry professor became very personally concerned when I accidentally cut my finger on a broken glass. Instead of calling me ugly or ignoring me, men started opening doors for me with a wide grin. Strange men would volunteer to carry heavy packages for me. To support myself through school, I had to work at various jobs. The moment I showed up for an interview, the male interviewer would have this silly grin and long conversations with me, then I would instantly receive a call the next day saying that I was definitely hired. Luckily, my intellectual background helped me to see all this with a sense of humor. I responded to any untoward advances with a humorous dismissal that hurts no one's feeling and everyone's ego remains intact. For the really tough cases, a sentence, composing of 3 syllable words and throwing a few philosopher's names in, is enough to scare anyone away. The only scary untoward advances were during subway rides in the city. For those, I do the hear, see nothing, and run away as fast as I could. It is unfortunate that women are judged more on the basis of their looks more than men. If a woman is plain looking, a man will note at how plain she is and dismiss her. If a woman is beautiful, a man will undermine her intellectual abilities. Comments are often made about whether a woman is well-groomed enough, whether she's gained any weight (look at anorexia among women), or how old she is. With the exception of Goldie Hawn, an aging female movie star has few options left except to play someone's mother. The aging male movie star can still play a romantic lead up until his late 60's. It is not only men who are sexist, but women also. I closely worked in Human Resources with a woman manager who has no children. She grew to rely and trust my opinions. During a hiring process for an Administrative Assistant position, she asked me whether any of the women have children. She was afraid that women with children will be unable to work long hours, and will have too many emergencies with children. On single unwed mothers, she wonders about their morality. With growing households headed by women, this type of thinking has an extreme negative effect on women's economics. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:52:00 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Sexism P.S. Message-ID: Two books that might be helpful regarding woman's empowerment. Circle of Stones-Woman's Journey to Herself, by Judith Duerk, publisher LuraMedia, San Diego, CA. The second one, I just bought yesterday, so I'm not sure how positive it is to women, The Return of the Mother by Andrew Harvey, published by Frog, Ltd. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 06:50:54 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Sex or violence? Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961220130310.1b7f7be6@iprolink.co.nz> Kym [Doss] >> ... there >>is a trial going on in which a rich and powerful 73 businessman is on >>trial for performing oral sex on a 14 year old employee ... [Kym] >... but rape is not sex, and sex is not rape. Rape is an assault, >the only difference is the man uses his penis rather than a club, or a >knife, or whatever (although rape can include all). Rape is an act of >violence. It certainly is, and one of the things to be raped by rape is sex itself, thinking of its huge potential and many levels of expression, and the scars that rape draws across that whole area in the victim's life. >I'm not attacking you as a person, Doss. It's just the terminology used >here is often used to "minimize" unspeakable acts. . .and to "minimize" >the trauma these victims have undergone. It happens over and over, despite some awareness of the problem. It seems to be embedded in our language which in turn is coming from centuries-long attitudes. Would like to write more, but time has run out. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 06:50:58 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: To Mark and Tom - everybody, actually Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961220130314.1b7f67da@iprolink.co.nz> Hi, I just want to acknowledge the questions and thoughts you directed to me a few days ago and let you know that I won't have time to respond as I would have liked. I've hit a time bind, with a need to work long hours etc, plus the more usual Christmas carry-on. Thanks to all. I'll keep reading theos-l as it comes in, except for 3rd to 8th of January when I'll be away at the NZ TS's annual convention. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:47:34 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The ole' ball and chain Message-ID: <961219135959_709681607@emout19.mail.aol.com> You really don't want to know how she uses it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:07:39 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: "One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's publicity": A CLARIFICATION Message-ID: <199612192007.NAA09099@mailhost.azstarnet.com> "One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's publicity": A CLARIFICATION K. Paul Johnson writes in two recent postings: 1st posting: >One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's >publicity for his piece is his claim that he has prepared an >"in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of >Johnson." What thesis? There are 32 people nominated as HPB's >Masters in TMR, and Caldwell devoted the entirety of his 42 page >argument to attacking my case for two of them. So his >"debunking" attempt is in fact focused on two hypotheses only, >and he doesn't even state what "the thesis of Johnson" >is..... 2nd posting: >.....He acknowledges he's only dealing with two out of the 32, and >nowhere *in* the piece claims to be debunking anything called >"the thesis." That claim only appeared later. So the number >of Masters discussed in his piece and the claims made in it are >indeed a matter of fact. The disagreement appears to be about >what can be claimed to have been accomplished after the fact. (Surprise!). Daniel Caldwell replies: I append at the end of these comments the "publicity" statement that Johnson refers to. Inexplicable?? In the "publicity statement" I clearly state: "The subtitle reads: 'A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi.' " When Johnson writes that I claim I have prepared an "in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson," Johnson is mistaken that this is MY claim. These words in quotation marks are what the Blavatsky Net people wrote about my paper. I wrote in the publicity piece: >A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web. This copy can >be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET >at this URL address: >http://www.blavatsky.org >On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on: >"Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky." >In this section my paper is introduced with these words: >"Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books --- Johnson is selling >three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky. >Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an >in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson." What thesis? Read my subtitle which is clearly given at the beginning of the "publicity" piece. Nevertheless, I can see how Johnson may have jumped to his conclusion. But the second paragraph of my publicity piece reads in part: "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" Notice that I write: "....Johnson's conjectures on these TWO Masters...." And when you click to the title page of my paper from The Blavatsky Net site, the title clearly reads: K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS: "A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi." Johnson again tells us that his overall thesis is about 32 individuals being nominated as HPB's Masters. But it is interesting to observe that both Johnson and Godwin in their introductory foreword and introduction to THE MASTERS REVEALED specifically mention (and highlight) the identifications of the two Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. And Johnson in his introduction even writes that he has made a persuasive case for the identifications of these 2 Masters. In summary, I would think that most people reading the publicity piece carefully and in context would understand what "thesis" is being discussed in my paper. "Mr. Caldwell's publicity for his piece" (as Johnson describes it) is appended below in full. ____________________________________________________________________ World Wide Web Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my 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 written by David Reigle, author of the work THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE, etc. (1983). 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 A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web. This copy can be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET at this URL address: http://www.blavatsky.org On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on: "Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky." In this section my paper is introduced with these words: "Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books --- Johnson is selling three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky. Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson." If you do not have access to the World Wide Web, I can send you a paper copy of HOUSE OF CARDS. Please notify me by e-mail at: blafoun@azstarnet.com I have been notified by Dr. David C. Lane that he will also be giving access to my paper on his web page "The Neural Surfer" at the URL address: http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/ My paper is NOT available yet at Dr. Lane's homepage but as soon as K. Paul Johnson's "Reply" to my paper is finished and ready for dissemination, I assume both papers will then be available at the "Neural Surfer" location. I also welcome comments on my paper. I have received numerous replies mostly thanking me for writing the paper. I am also looking forward to any comments showing fallacies in my arguments, etc. against Johnson's thesis. I am always open to other people's views on this subject. If I am somehow mistaken in my views, I certainly would like to know. But if someone tells me I have mistaken ideas, then I always ask them to please explain their own views in detail and to go step by step through their thinking process on the subject. Serious consideration of any subject requires this indepth kind of discussion and analysis. Can we afford to ask for any thing less in a world full of such conflicting claims and misinformation? Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 11:44:11 -0800 From: April Joy Subject: When you limit others you limit yourself. (long) Message-ID: <32B99B0B.2C19@gnp.com> >I see no evidence of my being upset about anything. All I did was ask a >question which reflected my opinion about you as being sexist, which you >confirmed. I do not see how it is logical of you to imply that you believe >that men and women are equal, and then criticize men far more than you >criticize women, and then say that I, who have criticized and praised them >oughly equally, am sexist. When have you praised women in your messages that wasn't demeaning or insulting. >It is natural for men to dominate women since they are stronger, both physically and >volitionally. Most women want this, preferring men to be the leaders. That wasn't a compliment, it is demeaning and it not totally true. Women are just starting to learn that they can take care of themselves. We have a long way to go before centuries of conditioning of "we are the weaker sex" is overturned and all women are standing up for themselves, fighting for themselves and taking care of themselves. But everyday another woman learns she is a capable person and doesn't need a man's strength or care to survive. If she chooses to live with a man it is out of choice, not necessity or meeting a social requirement. But some women don't do that because their parents, churches, cultures have taught them that they are incapable of protecting themselves and are so conditioned that it seems natural to them. They are shocked when they find out a woman has protected themselves in an assault, hauled the garbage out by themselves or changed a tire on a car. But every time a woman accomplishes something that women haven't done before it opens new avenues, creates a greater, deeper life for women. We will one day reach a point when the majority of women realize their worth and their capabilities regardless of male sexism/domination. I include a story of a person who was conditioned to a self limiting handicap. It is a long story but I will try to paraphrase it. A congenitally blind woman with cerebral palsy had received care throughout her life by her family she was admitted to a hospital in NY in 1980, she was sixty years old. She was intelligent, literate, eloquent woman. She could not use her hands, for her they were completely useless. "They don't even feel part of me." she had told her doctor. The doctor was puzzled for cerebral palsy does not make the hands useless, just weak or spastic, but still of use. As he tested her he found that she had the full sensation in her hands, touch, pain, temperature, passive movement. Yet she was incapable of recognizing or identifying any item by touch alone. She did not use her hands to explore anything put in her hands. Her hands were totally foreign, alien, lifeless to her. After researching her past the doctor discovered that family members and all people throughout her life had been her hands. They fed her, bathed her, read to her, they told her from infancy that her hands were of no use, that they were crippled, they discouraged the use of her hands until she became totally alienated to them. She had been told and brought up to believe her hands were useless. In order to help her the doctor needed to let the woman discover her hands, he had to construct a thought pattern she hand never had in the first place and make it a physical reality. The woman was totally surprised to hear from the doctor that her hands were perfectly normal and had purpose and were of use to her. That she didn't have to wait until someone fed her, she could do it herself. That she comb her own hair, turn the TV channel, play the piano. The first thing she touched voluntarily was a bagel, then a glass of water. She was 60 years old before she learned that her hands were more than lifeless, dough. We take it for granted when we reach out for an object, feel its smoothness, roughness, move it form place to place. Dress ourselves, feed ourselves are hold a flower to our noses to smell. All these things she learned at 60 years of age. This woman believed in her handicapped because every influential person she knew before her 60th year treated her like she had no hands. All those people saw a a totally handicapped person. They then prececded to treat her like a totally handicapped person enforcing the believe that she was totally crippled and that her hands were totally useless. This was a lie that she lived for 60 years until someone informed her and proved to her that her hands were not only useable but had purpose. This opened up a new life and made her more independant. ********* Now turn this around an place not hands but identity, capability, in the place of lifeless hands. Have everyone you know, father, mother, teacher, preacher, doctor, friend tell you from birth that you are weak, unintelligent, incapable, that your body, mind and soul are not your own. That you have no or little value. That your purpose is to belong to another and give up your identity, your dreams, your purpose in life to another.That you are only to please your father, bed your husband and bear his children and take care of him and them in your old age. Because of the limited capability of your gender, you can not work, attend school, you are not to read certain books or even refused the opportunity to learn. That you can not make decisions so you must turn to the other gender for all advice, financial affairs, you can not own property, have a bank account. Because of your weakness, you can not go anywhere alone you need a chaperone or your husband, father, brother in attendance. If all your relatives die, you must devote yourself to the church, be a nun, or work at the lowest jobs that pay the least, like maid, cook, or in desperation for income a prostitute. Basically you are handicapped by a weak mind, weak limbs, weak spirit, that you are week in health, and strength. Now make this teaching centuries old, where mother, father, teacher, preacher, doctor, friend pushes this belief for centuries. Then have a woman learn she can do more, she is capable of walking down the street alone, she is capable of reading a book, that she can complete school, that she can live alone, that she does not have to have children. Then another woman gets brave and tries something new like not getting married and having children and just have a job and live alone. The another woman sees that accomplishment and then decides to marry, have children and hold a job, successfully. Then have another woman learn to fly, like Amelia Earhart. Basically discovering for the first time that these so called gender limitations are not true, that being a woman doesn't make her a useless piece of dough. That centuries of teachings women handicaps has alienated woman from who she really is and her capabilities as a woman. Undoing the damage of false handicaps will take time. Not all women will see that they are not limited by their gender. All the things that men do they take for granted. Reading a book, walking down the street alone, changing a tire. Men have always been taught that they are strong, capable of living alone or with another. That they can do any job, have any social position and be whatever they choose to be. They can own property, have a bank account.. They can have an opinion, they can make decisions. They are intelligent. In other words their capabilities are not hidden from them and they are not discouraged from using them to the fullest. They have not been indoctrinated with false handicaps. Women have been alienated from their true idenity and capabiites, and we have to relearn the truth. After all the progress woman have made this last century, there are still women brought up to believe the old myths and limitations. They are so suprised to learn they are untrue or even scared by this knowledge. What is scary is that some countries are going backwards and are limiting women to the old stereotypes by laws enforced by punishments ranging from beatings to death. ----- Women should not quit trying or not try new things because a man says they are too emotional and unsuited to a job, a task, a way of life. Each woman should have an equal opportunity to fight in wars, be head of state, to be CEO in a company or to stay home and raise children. They should not be penalized, demeaned or refused equal chances to advance in life because of their sex or the way women think. The way women function, think, and physical capabilities does not make them ill suited for any task, job, position in life. All these things that were kept from women by men for centuries because of a belief that women are inferior or not as capable as a man. We women will not give up or emotions for you men. It is our strength, our weakness, our soul. I as woman have worked in the "mans" world but I refuse to give up that which makes me different from men. I also refuse to except limitations because of these differences. These differences do not inhibit my abilities, I will do a job different from most men, but still do it as well. Women need to "relearn" the basic nature of women and not the nature "taught" to us for centuries. Being a woman means she has been prey, she can be the huntress, she is creative, she is intuitive, she is a listener, she is a storyteller, she is a inventor, she is a student and she is a teacher, she is a fighter, she is wild, she is tame, she is a peace keeper, she is has great beauty and can be as ugly as she is beautiful, she is sexual, she is industrious, she is playful, she is the daughter she is the friend she is the lover she is the wife she is the mother she is the healer she is the crone Women are just realizing what being a natural woman means, she is not limited to false pictures of womanhood and femininity. This natural self is so strong and capable, that having a man in ones life is a choice not a necessity for survival. Men also need to find their true selves quit allowing culture, society, churches tell you what a man is and don't let yourself be limited by false pictures. Men can be lover, father, friend, and caregiver as much as any woman. Men will do these things differently but equally. Men do not have to be father, worker, husband, warrior only. Those are too limiting. Allow yourselves to feel emotion, to feel total love, hate, jealousy, emotional pains. Logic alone is limiting in scope and depth. Emotions is far reaching and soul cleansing. If you wish to stay home and take care of babies go for it. If you wish to be single for life fine, you are not required to marry (just don't father kids and not take care of them). Men can be more than they have allowed themselves to be, they don't have to limit women to be all they are, by trying to limit others they limit themselves. By saying only a woman can give care to a child limits a mans contact with their children. By refusing to allow a woman to help with the finances, he has taken the burden on himself when it can be spread between the two of them. By refusing to have emotions man has created a situation where he has no release from stress, or emotional pain. To put maleness in to a box of strength, dominance and no weaknesses, is self defeating because all people need to be able to be weak, to at times allow someone else to take over, to allow someone to pull the reins and give him a break and chance to rest in spirit and physically. To not allow emotion and only logic, means situations are view only from one view point and is slanted and often uncaring decisions are made. If a man allows emotion into decision making he has allowed himself to view situations from all view points. In other words people should not be placed in a box according to gender. For when you limit a person to box A and another person to box B. They can never have the full life that living outside of boxes gives. April Joy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 07:36:58 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <199612192226.RAA29280@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > Would you say that it is sexist discrimination that no women play in the > National Football League and that no men have babies? Would you rather have > your country be defended by a predominantly female army? Do you think > society would be no worse if men took women's place as the predominant > raiser of children? The strange thing is, all these things are on their way to becoming reality. Women are serving in the armed forces and men are staying home to spend more time caring for their children while their wives work. Obviously, those women are working for bosses that are more concerned with their performance as workers. Is it possible that you live in an area that does not get wide coverage of the news that that you are not aware of such things? As for men having babies, who knows what science will come up with. Gay male couples adopt children. > > Men need to stand up to women like you who are determined to see sexism > where it doesn't exist, just because some men are sexist. I have seen many comments like this in your posts. Every argument isn't heard by you, but turned around into something else. Obviously you are skilled at defending your opinions, to the point that you are blind to whether they have any truth or logic in them. Actually, I find their twisting and turning to be very illogical. I do not believe that you are interested in honest discussion, only in defending your personal superiority, regardless of your sex. Then, of course, there is the possibility that you are a clever troll, here to stir up as much controversary and flames as possible, then turning around and complaining while you laugh at us behind our backs. Some of us are getting tired of the game. Our finger is poised on the delete key every time we see your name next to a post. Good-bye -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 07:50:50 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Karma and the cosmos Message-ID: <199612192226.RAA29292@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Thoa Tran > As far as symbology, what could the letter "M" possibly mean? That I like > to eat M&Ms? I hope it doesn't mean masochist. ... > Presently, I'm surrounded by Tauruses. Being a restless Leo, that's > settled me down quite a bit. I used to strive for some far off concept, > but now I'm more of a homey type. The bad part of that is that sometimes I > feel like running off and joining the Peace Corp. Taurus is very down-to-earth. Perhaps someone that knew numerology would be able to come up with some info about the letter "M" and its meaning. > > I was looking through the Philosophy section of a bookstore today, and > skimmed through a book on reasoning. The author was trying to debunk some > of the astrological concepts. He said that our calendar is based on > ancient time, and that the planets and their alignments have changed quite > a bit since that time. That means that we are supposed to deduct 11 days > from each astrological sign to get our true sign. . . That issue's been discussed for some time now. All I can say is that my own work in astrology has never failed me in being able to see patterns in my life. I do my own with a computer program. I had a certain amount skepticism about astrology, too. Then I had a reading with one of the most well-known astrologers in Chicago. He started to tell me my past and childhood and what it was like, without ever having talked to me before. I was hooked. Forget the stuff in the newspaper or magazines. The only accurate astrological advice you can get is by going to a known professional astrologer or doing it yourself, which can take years of study. Esoteric astrology is even deeper and more complicated. Hope this helps, -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:28:46 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <19961219232843.AAA25724@LOCALNAME> At 10:33 PM 12/19/96 +0000, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: >> From: Tom Robertson >> Men need to stand up to women like you who are determined to see sexism >> where it doesn't exist, just because some men are sexist. >I have seen many comments like this in your posts. Every argument isn't >heard by you, but turned around into something else. Obviously you are skilled >at defending your opinions, to the point that you are blind to whether they >have any truth or logic in them. Actually, I find their twisting and turning to >be very illogical. [snip] >Some of us are getting tired of the game. Our finger is poised on the >delete key every time we see your name next to a post. April Joy and I have both explicitly claimed to believe that men and women are inherently equal overall. I have mentioned 5 or 6 ways in which I consider men to be actually superior to women, and 4 or 5 ways in which I consider women to be actually superior to men. April Joy has mentioned 30 or 40 ways in which she considers women to be actually superior to men, and no ways in which she considers men to be actually superior to women. These are facts which anyone can look up simply by reading our articles of the last 2 weeks, no matter how much you claim that I have been "illogical" in "twisting" the words of others. For you to consider me sexist, and her not, tells me you have not been reading them in the first place, and that it is far more likely that you are sexist than that I am. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 96 19:04:31 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: <199612200004.TAA10540@leo.vsla.edu> Last night I was talking to my friend Martha about seasonal matters, and we started to compare notes on how we feel at this time of year. I had observed, over the last eight years or so, a very particular thing that happens at the solstice. Late November and early December are always my low point of the year in terms of energy, enthusiasm, creativity. Something inside just sorta shrivels up, and I go into "just get through it somehow" mode. Like a mini- version of Seasonal Affective Depression. But when that shortest day comes and goes, there's a tremendous turnabout within. Something awakens, and from late December through the spring equinox I'm in an intense, almost manic creative phase. Have written all my books that way-- totally focused through the winter, ready to go out and play when spring comes. Then, through spring, summer and into fall, I'm much more extraverted, wanting to be outdoors and with people, less able to concentrate on literary work. Those times are good for editing, indexing, minor revisions, but not real creativity of the winter kind. Martha, who is an artist rather than a writer, surprised me by saying this was a totally familiar pattern to her, one that she observes in her own life but moreover one she thinks is rooted in universals. She's an anthroposophist, and apparently Rudolf Steiner talks about the inner meaning of the solstice at some length. She felt that what I observed within myself was in fact not an individual thing at all but something anyone sensitive to spiritual influences would notice. I know that Theosophy emphasizes the four sacred seasons, but don't recall any details that specifically relate to the experience I'm describing. Don't recall seeing anything about it in the Cayce readings, or world religions. But of course for Christians this time of year is experienced as a time of birth, which fits the inner archetypal pattern. So, some questions to people on the lists I'm addressing: 1. Does this ring a bell with you? How? 2. Do those of you down under have the same thing in June? 3. Any literary references that address this phenomenon come to mind? Thanks, Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 19:55:55 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: See what is happening in book publishing Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961220015555.00678280@mail.eden.com> Hi Here is a very interesting development I picked up from Information Week. ============================================= Do you like tobe among the first to read the hot new book? Publisher McGraw Hill Beta Book program may be just the thing you're looking for. The web site offers cutting-edge computer titles a full three months before they're published. Two new books will be posted in their entirety each month. To get the jump on the competition and stay ahead of your game, see what's comingto bookstores at: http://www.betabooks.mcgraw-hill.com/ ===================================================== MKR Comments: If this is the trend, soon there would be chaos in publishing industry. Some of the publishers are likely to run into rough financial seas, especially those trying to make money on *revised* or *abridged* editions of books whose copyright has expired a long time ago. In this category will fall TPH. Next in line, in my judgement, are the magazines who may lose readership. Already there are ezines. Would like to watch developments with interest. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 19:06:13 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: <199612200206.TAA27998@snowden.micron.net> Paul wrote: >Something inside >just sorta shrivels up, and I go into "just get through it >somehow" mode. >So, some questions to people on the lists I'm addressing: >1. Does this ring a bell with you? How? Ring a bell? How Christmasie. Yeah, the "just get through it somehow" statement rings a bell. Christmas seems to be a time, like no other, to recognize just how pitifully lonely you are OR that most of the people who share your life are really just plain weirdos. >2. Do those of you down under have the same thing in June? Does not apply. >3. Any literary references that address this phenomenon come >to mind? Well, I don't know if you'll accept this as a literary reference, but, I just received a Christmas card signed "Up yours." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 21:23:07 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612200233.VAA28527@ultra1.dreamscape.com> It seems to be trading confidences week around here. Several women have opened up to me lately, and I can tell you of some of the things that are dead wrong between the sexes. The man thinks if he goes out to work for 8 hours & brings home some money which may or may not be adequate, he's done enough. Meantime, perhaps the woman also holds down a job. On top of that, she's the kingpin of the family. She sets the tone in the whole house. She helps the kids achieve high goals or not, depending on how much trouble & hours of working with them) she's willing to put in. If the floor or falling apart, & needs to be replaced, she has to work twice as hard to keep it clean. If she has no dryer, she has to take the time to hang her laundry on a line. If money for food is short, she has to make up for it with good cooking. No matter what else she does, the woman keeps the family together, and she does it in sickness or in health. So I hear, the roof leaks for 2 years and he just can't get around to fixing it. She's expected to work atround this. The kids don't help her, well, he doesn't either, so she has to do all the hard chores herself. She's expected to do all the work nevertheless. But the kids throw spit balls at the dining room mirror, when nobody's looking, and the father laughs about it, while she cleans up the mess. He gets sick. She nurses him. She gets sick. He decides to go on a vacation to Florida. If she's so weak that she has to drag herself around the house to make herself some tea or warm up a can of soup, well that's her tough luck. It seems that very often we women just get dumped on, and we've gotten so used to it throughout the centuries, that we just take whatever gets dished out to us, and we struggle on from there. No matter how sick, or pregnant, or anything else we are, most of us manage to carry on taking care of our families and all the chores. Nobody says "thank you", not ever. Good ole Ma, she always knows how to cope with any situation that comes up. Just let her shift by herself. She'll be ok. I'm reminded of an insulting French saying, which is eminently true "la vie est un desert, et la femme est le chameau qui nous y transporte." Life is a desert, and woman is the camel (also means idiot) which transports us across it. Actually, the word "nous" means "we", but in this case "we" means "men". OK, so now let's see how any old macho man can rationalize this away. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 21:37:05 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Karma and the cosmos Message-ID: <199612200247.VAA29751@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Someone talked about the significance of the letter M. Well, let me tell you what the letter M means to me. When I went to school, I used to put a letter M on my friends' or my own forehead for good luck. This is how M means good luck. There's a French word merde, which means, well, I'll say manure. When you walk around the streets of Paris, at least in the days when I walked around there, there was a lot of dog manure on the narrow sidewalks. And I suppose rather than get angry at stepping in it, people used to say that it was good luck. So merde, which means "S---" means good luck. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:32:56 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: when you limit others you limit yourself. Message-ID: <199612200343.WAA05007@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear April Joy, Your message did my heart good. You tell it like it is. Thank you! If, for a minute, you'll forgive an old lady's bragging, I didn't do this on purpose, but I think I've lived the life of a feminist. When it was time for me to go to college, my father said "what for? She's going to get married anyway." My mother, who usually won these arguments, thanks goodness, replied that the State wanted me to go to college, and so I should go. I had received several scholarships. One of them a State scholarship for my tuition. And so I went to college. I got married & had 2 kids, true to female form. As a reverse from the usual family situation, my husband wanted me to go to work, but I just refused. I wanted to bring up my kids myself. When they got older, I took a job with the State, where men and women were paid alike, and promoted by exam. My husband died while my kids were still in High School, so I put them through college. They both have advanced degrees, and good professions, and I pride myself on that. I've lived by myself since my husband died, but, contrary to what most of us expected, I can't say that I've been unhappy. I'm living much more peacefully by myself. I don't need to make allowances for anybody else's foibles. I've traveled, I've had several hobbies which I really love, and through which I think I blossomed forth. One difficult thing at first was going into a restaurant by yourself. I got used to that too, but I do get annoyed at the humerous hostesses, who invariably look past me, and want to know whether I'm really only one. I'm much more satisfied than when I was struggling to please my husband, who was never pleased anyway ... that he admitted. After he died some of his friends told me how he bragged about what a good job I was doing with our kids. A lot of good it did then. I even did a good job with the IRS, who audited him every year, including the year that he died. He never kept any records, so I had to guess at the figures. I ended up paying an extra $100,-, which wasn't doing too bad I thought. On that occasion I also had to console an IRS agent, who came to my house, and sat down on my love seat crying "I hate my job!" I've gotten lonesome at times, but I've found ways of compensating for that. After my kids were taken care of, I just lived a life as I damn well pleaased. I live in a messy bachelor pad, set up for me to enjoy. It's too late now to think of getting married again, but when I did, a few years ago, I had made up my mind that if I found someone, he'd have to live either in another wing of the house, or in an adjacent apartment. I'm used to having my space, and living my way, without making allowances for anybody else's foibles. And, so far, I've been able very nicely to take care of myself. With this kind of,life I lead, I think I'm entitled to call myslef a feminist, or as I said in my write up about Chanukah, on Chanukah I light a menorah. This is usually done by the men of the house, but I've been head of the family for so long I think I'm entitled. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:19:04 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: ES/TS Discussion Message-ID: <9612200419.AA28493@toto.csustan.edu> > JHE > Which letter are you quoting Bart? Do you believe that the ES > is "exactly what it is supposed to be in the first place"? If > not, how is it different? BL > Sigh. At 10:51 PM on a Wednesday, I don't have time to look it > up; check out Kingsford, Anna in the index, and you'll find it, > and a lot of other interesting stuff as well. > > Bart Lidofsky JHE Bart, I asked the above questions because I am interested in *your* thoughts upon them, based upon what *you* have read in the Mahatma Letters. I have read the Mahatma Letters through several times and know what is in the book. Maybe after a good night's rest, and with the weekend coming up, you will be able to find time to give my questions some thought. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 04:26:58 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <19961220042655.AAA7416@LOCALNAME> At 02:47 AM 12/20/96 +0000, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >It seems that very often we women just get dumped on, and we've >gotten so used to it throughout the centuries, that we just take whatever >gets dished out to us, and we struggle on from there. No matter how sick, or >pregnant, or anything else we are, most of us manage to carry on taking care >of our families and all the chores. Nobody says "thank you", not ever. No matter how much some radical feminists may believe that there might be 1 or 2 men somewhere who are slightly imperfect in what I assume to be highly insignificant ways, the responsibility for men taking women who give more than they receive for granted is mutual. All good things create dependence, a factor which all givers should take into account. The recipient of a gift is not obligated to the extent of the cost to the giver, but to the extent of the benefit to the recipient. If the cost to the giver is greater than the benefit to the recipient, that is the giver's responsibility. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:47:44 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: <961220004744_1887851331@emout19.mail.aol.com> Paul, I don't know, my most productive time is during the summer and always has been. That's when I write my books and I don't think the Chicago suburbs have changed hemispheres. But then I always did sort of do things ass backwards. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:10:09 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: > > Do I mean it? > > Of course I do, barring snow storm. > > Chuck the Heretic > > And I'll bet everyone on the list is very confused by this exchange! > > > Uploading a blizzard of snow to Uncle Chuckie.... he would make a good abominable snowman ducking Gertrude the Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 23:44:29 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: Tom Robertson: >April Joy: >>I lost another job because I had a baby and the boss thought it would >>interfer with my work. >Why do you believe he was wrong? I have a solution, why don't we just have a mass sterilization? That way, no one will have children, thereby they can give their life blood to the company. I have seen BOTH men and women who have had to make sacrifices for their children, sometimes at the expense of the maximum capacity they could give to their employer. I had a male co-worker who came in late and tired all the time because he just had a new baby. His household, by necessity, is a two income household. His wife was making more money than he, and had a much more stable job. In this two income family, he had to put in his share of dealing with an unpredictable baby. Unfortunately, this happened during his first month on the job. His supervisor was very unhappy with his performance. I've known several women who miraculously do their jobs very well and run a household. In a former job, an accounting supervisor managed to work 12 hour days, weekends, give her son support by attending all of his events, cook supper and clean for her family every day. She does it by coming in at 6:00 a.m., leaving at 6:00 p.m., and eating lunch while she works. She took it upon herself to still do "women's work" because her husband makes 3 times what she is making, and she and he being traditional asians, would not reliquish her traditional role as the wife. She said that although her husband can support her, for her self-esteem, she will not give up her job. In that same job, I knew a woman who has 5 kids, work 40 hours a week, attends classes paid by the company, and deals with a jerk of a boyfriend who is emotionally abusive. These women are breaking their necks for their male supervisors who have wives who stay at home with the children. While these women are constantly busy, these supervisors have the luxury of coming up to chit-chat as if they have nothing better to do. The reality of today is that it is very difficult to have the traditional households even if most women wish it. By necessity, both partners have to work in order to maintain a household with children. A great number of the households are women with the men giving either very little financial support or none at all. Also, the reality of today is that companies demand more work for the money they are paying. For your one flat yearly salary, you are required to work at least 10 hour days and weekends. The excuse that you are only obligated to work a 40 hour week does not fly when it comes to promotion, or if you are in a probationary period. IMO, this is madness. With all this modern technology guaranteeing us faster results, we are expecting even more fast and efficient results. It's about time that ALL companies be sensitive to the issue of parenting and accommodate that. When we don't take care of the needs of children, we are contributing to the downfall of society. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:05:45 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Beating for Doss Message-ID: MKR: >Beating my own drums (which I normally don't like - I like others beating >my drums - it makes life easier): I am beating, Doss, with a heroic rhythm. I think it's great that you are letting us know what you are doing. It inspires the rest of us to do what we can, and contribute our 2 cents. To put an energy to doing some good, along with your personal life and your professional life, requires great sacrifices. I've been spread thin with all the obligations I've had. It is only now that I'm able to sit back and sigh about my soul. When I was reading about the cosmos, I'm wondering what has that got to do with helping me be strong and compassionate in my dealings with life. I get more inspiration from my readings about Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and others who have made their sacrifices. Most of the time, I'm conflicted about how much I should devote to myself and how much I should devote to outside activities. If one cannot make oneself strong, one cannot be strong for others. Also, heroism can be as simple as being a kindly influence to everyone one meets. Then again, now and then, one can do more than what one usually does. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:22:52 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: To Ann (Re: to Tom Robertson) Message-ID: > At 10:33 PM 12/19/96 "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote:> > >Some of us are getting tired of the game. Our finger is poised on the > >delete key every time we see your name next to a post. > For you to consider me sexist, and her not, > tells me you have not been reading them in the first place, and that it is > far more likely that you are sexist than that I am. Wow! I thought Tom had gotten as bizzare as he was gonna get, but this has got to be some sort of ultimate - it has now reached the point where (at least in the confines of his own world) he has "logically" proved that not only is he *not* a sexist ... but April Joy and Ann *are*. Probably by the end of the year it will be "rationally proven" that the several thousand women that were beaten in their homes today are actually better off than the men who beat them, because the men are "23" times more likely than women to serve jail time for assault - plus the beatings weren't really beatings ... but were really just an alternative, um, "leadership" style that got a little out of hand. I remember myself at the point where I could logically prove that women had more power than men ... because men had to pursue women and risk the fear of rejection, while women could say yes or no as they pleased when asked out on a date. Yep. I built a completely solid, rationally airtight case that definitively "proved" it was a "fact". And any woman that argued with me was subjected to a *battle* ... in fact I was usually able to twist the very arguments the women made into further "proof" of my thesis. Of course, I was 14 years old at the time ... had not yet understood that a rigid insistance on "rationality" when dealing with the subject of interpersonal relationships is really a mildly pathological condition arising because of the fear of the emotional nature, and the lack of its integration into the total human energy-system. But I do remember that when one is caught within the confines of such a narrow feedback loop, one's unconscious assumptions are elevated into universal truths, and *every* input from the world serves to simply confirm the assumptions. Every argument made by anyone, if fact anything other than complete agreement with one's thoughts is reconfigured as it enters the loop ... and not only does not shake the underlying assumptions, but rather justifies them. But this just shows the deep danger inherent in the "rational mind" operating in an imbalanced way, without harmonious integration with body, emotion and spirit. (I recently read a debate between a group of political theorists from around the world, in which one completely "rationally" demonstrated that the development of chemical weapons technology was not only necessary, but actually desirable. His logic was impeccable. It scares the *shit* out of me to understand that there are still so many humans capable of that sort of thinking - but I suppose that's just my own "irrational" reaction...) ANYway ... what I do understand is that arguing with Tom will do nothing - because everything anyone says will be re-configured as it enters the world of his assumptions, and no one stands a chance in that world - in it he *is* a poor innocent victim of the irrationality, emotionalism, and (tee hee) "sexism" of the women and some of the men on this "feminist" list. For myself, I remember it was not an argument, but rather an event that opened my eyes. I was around 17, and the sister of a good friend of mine was beaten and raped. She refused to talk to the police (at the time, and even still to some extent these days, reporting a rape can feel like the equivilent of being abused all over again) - and was ashamed and humiliated and hid in her room for a week after getting home from the hospital. She was, though, very close to her brother, and I remember a day when he, myself, and two other friends were sitting in his living room and she came downstairs for the first time - and I remember seeing her face and it was suddenly as though time froze and the rest of the world disappeared for a moment ... it was some sort of flash of empathy or something, but in all of a second the full force of the experiencee written on her face hit me ... not just the physical bruises but the terrifying hollowness in eyes that I remembered sparkling the last time I saw her. And in the space of that one second all my "rational arguments" about the power women have over men were rendered silly, pathetic, and just downright childish. It was not that they were any less "rational", rather, that the paradigm *within which* they were rational was shattered. And that is why, I think, several people have said they feel like Tom twists things ... and why in his world he always "wins" ... once you except the premises ... once you begin arguing within his paradigm, he will always "win". I suppose from the larger perspective I personally believe that this century has seen the beginning of a huge *spiritual* project ... nothing less than the re-harmonization of the masculine and feminine principles on the planet. And considering the scale at which such a thing works, its actually happening remarkably quickly - after literally *millenia* of female subserviance, in less than a century we've gone from women needing to win the right to even vote to women running nations. But anything moving that (relatively) quickly will never (IMO) do so smoothly - some portions of the population will eagerly leap into changes, while others will resist, and still others actually dig themselves into psychological foxholes ... perceiving evolution as a threat, or trying to dismiss it as a "fad". Thing is, it doesn't matter much whether Tom spends the rest of his life believing what he believes ... doesn't matter if he wins every argument. The perspective he holds has already *lost the war*. 50 years ago it would have been considered almost enlightened. 25 years ago the norm. Today rather archaic. And probably 25 years from now will just provoke giggles. *That's* how quickly the wave is moving. Its not as though there won't be more like him, or the Rush Limbaugh faction, or Christian or Muslim fundamentalists ... justifying their points of view with arguments ranging from "well, we're *really* seeking a "balanced" approach" ... to "well, its actually because we *honor* women" ... and many, at the individual level, will never be convinced ... but the larger phenomena going on is that with every generation there are less and less of them, and their viewpoints ... which even a few decades ago they could speak aloud with no one even arguing with them ... can now no longer be voiced without significant voices being raised in opposition. But there is, for all its weirdness, humor in such discussions. My strange partner (who for the first time has bothered to follow a theos-l thread), has enjoyed numerous laughs ... and when I asked her whether maybe it ought to be taken more seriously, asked me how I could do anything *but* laugh ... at a situation in which someone "spits into a tidal wave, and imagines he was *won*!". Ta ta, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:26:43 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: 1. I feel the same thing. Although I live in California, it is usually foggy, rainy and cold in the winter. I usually wake up feeling cranky, and my general disposition is depressed. Although it is a time when there is supposed to be holiday cheers, I have a hard time feeling cheerful. Part of it could be the general lack of sun, hence more staying indoors, and less activity. I miss my daily outdoor run because the sun sets much earlier. Running outdoors any other time of the day would disturb my daily schedule. I have a friend who gets the opposite reaction, and she is a very spiritual person, much more so than me. She gets depressed during the high heat of the summer. Summer makes her feel lethargic and sticky. 2. Not down under, except under the weather. 3. Don't have any in mind. If I run into any literary references, I'll let you know. It's good to know I'm not the only one. I won't feel so guilty about staying in bed longer than normal. TTT, Fellow Totally Depressed Person. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:22:53 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: <9612200822.AA02927@toto.csustan.edu> KPJ >So, some questions to people on the lists I'm addressing: >1. Does this ring a bell with you? How? >2. Do those of you down under have the same thing in June? >3. Any literary references that address this phenomenon come >to mind? > >Thanks, >Paul Paul, All the seasons are the same to me as far as productivity and moods go. But then, I'm a Californian, and my Chicago born wife tells me that California doesn't have seasons :-) As for a literary reference, try *The Anatomy of Melancholy* by Robert Burton. It was originally published in 1621. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 20 04:05:15 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM... Message-ID: <199612200905.EAA20428@envirolink.org> TTT, do you, MMM, find me attractive? hehehe. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:13:29 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: To Mark and Tom - everybody, actually Message-ID: <32bb582b.51182802@mail> On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:30:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >Hi, > >I just want to acknowledge the questions and thoughts you directed to me a >few days ago and let you know that I won't have time to respond as I would >have liked. I've hit a time bind, with a need to work long hours etc, plus >the more usual Christmas carry-on. > >Thanks to all. I'll keep reading theos-l as it comes in, except for 3rd to >8th of January when I'll be away at the NZ TS's annual convention. > >Murray > > Bee here, Murray. We will have my computer set up for the Convention at the Lodge and I hope that Theos-l will be kind enough to respond to any of the members trying out the e-mail discussion list. I would like to increase awareness of Theosophy on the Internet and there is a workshop on this on Monday morning. If anyone on this list will be around on 5th to 7th Jan, would you please tune in and see if we have been trying to chat to someone. From the USA side, we will be chatting during your night time so hopefully others will not be on that time line. Murray will be able to have a quick read if he has time from all the other activities. Cheers. Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 20 04:29:02 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism, TTT Message-ID: <199612200929.EAA21000@envirolink.org> Bravo. I understand where you are coming from, mainly because my past is much like yours. However, with me, I haven't "filled out" quite yet. Unfortunately, I don't think "yet" qualifies, for I am way past the blooming point. My body is not shaped like a V. It never was. I was never much for making friends. I had a total of one until my last years of high school, when I met quite a few people who weren't quite as "fashion conscious". I have been told that I have an attractive face and personality, but with many women, often the beautiful ones (notice I said "often" not "always"), face and body don't count. It's the gluts and the pecs they look at. I have neither. Perhaps we have two evils. Sexism and "idealism". There are arrogant men and women in this world. An arrogant man will voice his sexism (whistling, etc.) just as fast as an arrogant woman will voice hers. I think that all of us, in our minds, want the "ideal" companion. If you are an interviewer, and the "ideal" person walks in, whether you like it or not, "bad" thoughts are going to flash through your head. If you are arrogant, you will express those thoughts. If you are professional, you will supress them. If you are neither arrogant nor professional, the thoughts/feelings will grow on you and come out like freudian slips. I don't think that sexism can really be abolished. I don't know. Idealism (in the way I'm using it) will change, surely, but I don't think it will ever go away either. With sexism, I think that people can learn not to express it, but it will always sit in the back of their minds, right next to idealism. I think that is why we "should be" humble. If one is not arrogant, one will not express dominance or judge another. Hmmm...I have a lot to think about before I go any further...you post really made me think about a few things. P.S. My mind is subject to change. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:24:05 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <199612201333.IAA21131@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: liesel f. deutsch > . . . I'm reminded of an insulting French > saying, which is eminently true "la vie est un desert, et la femme est le > chameau qui nous y transporte." Life is a desert, and woman is the camel > (also means idiot) which transports us across it. > Actually, the word "nous" means "we", but in this case "we" means "men". > OK, so now let's see how any old macho man can rationalize this away. > Perhaps the camel should periodically dump the rider and kick their butt. ; -) -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:29:11 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Karma and the cosmos Message-ID: <199612201333.IAA21140@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: liesel f. deutsch > > Someone talked about the significance of the letter M. Well, let me tell you > what the letter M means to me. When I went to school, I used to put a letter > M on my friends' or my own forehead for good luck. This is how M means good > luck. > There's a French word merde, which means, well, I'll say manure. When you > walk around the streets of Paris, at least in the days when I walked around > there, there was a lot of dog manure on the narrow sidewalks. And I suppose > rather than get angry at stepping in it, people used to say that it was good > luck. So merde, which means "S---" means good luck. > I wasn't walking around Paris when I encountered dog manure. When I was going to grammar school, my mother alway wanted to walk through the alley in Chicago, where is where most everyone walked their dog. I thought it was a fun game to dodge the piles on the cement, but never thought of it as good luck. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:07:39 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: "One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's publicity": A CLARIFICATION Message-ID: <199612192007.NAA09099@mailhost.azstarnet.com> "One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's publicity": A CLARIFICATION K. Paul Johnson writes in two recent postings: 1st posting: >One thing quite inexplicable about Mr. Caldwell's >publicity for his piece is his claim that he has prepared an >"in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of >Johnson." What thesis? There are 32 people nominated as HPB's >Masters in TMR, and Caldwell devoted the entirety of his 42 page >argument to attacking my case for two of them. So his >"debunking" attempt is in fact focused on two hypotheses only, >and he doesn't even state what "the thesis of Johnson" >is..... 2nd posting: >.....He acknowledges he's only dealing with two out of the 32, and >nowhere *in* the piece claims to be debunking anything called >"the thesis." That claim only appeared later. So the number >of Masters discussed in his piece and the claims made in it are >indeed a matter of fact. The disagreement appears to be about >what can be claimed to have been accomplished after the fact. (Surprise!). Daniel Caldwell replies: I append at the end of these comments the "publicity" statement that Johnson refers to. Inexplicable?? In the "publicity statement" I clearly state: "The subtitle reads: 'A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi.' " When Johnson writes that I claim I have prepared an "in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson," Johnson is mistaken that this is MY claim. These words in quotation marks are what the Blavatsky Net people wrote about my paper. I wrote in the publicity piece: >A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web. This copy can >be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET >at this URL address: >http://www.blavatsky.org >On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on: >"Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky." >In this section my paper is introduced with these words: >"Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books --- Johnson is selling >three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky. >Daniel Caldwell of Blavatsky Foundation has prepared an >in-depth and scholarly analysis debunking the thesis of Johnson." What thesis? Read my subtitle which is clearly given at the beginning of the "publicity" piece. Nevertheless, I can see how Johnson may have jumped to his conclusion. But the second paragraph of my publicity piece reads in part: "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" Notice that I write: "....Johnson's conjectures on these TWO Masters...." And when you click to the title page of my paper from The Blavatsky Net site, the title clearly reads: K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS: "A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi." Johnson again tells us that his overall thesis is about 32 individuals being nominated as HPB's Masters. But it is interesting to observe that both Johnson and Godwin in their introductory foreword and introduction to THE MASTERS REVEALED specifically mention (and highlight) the identifications of the two Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. And Johnson in his introduction even writes that he has made a persuasive case for the identifications of these 2 Masters. In summary, I would think that most people reading the publicity piece carefully and in context would understand what "thesis" is being discussed in my paper. "Mr. Caldwell's publicity for his piece" (as Johnson describes it) is appended below in full. ____________________________________________________________________ World Wide Web Availability of "K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?" by Daniel H. Caldwell Thanks to everyone who has requested a copy of my 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 written by David Reigle, author of the work THE BOOKS OF KIU-TE, etc. (1983). 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 A copy is NOW available on the World Wide Web. This copy can be accessed through the courtesy of BLAVATSKY NET at this URL address: http://www.blavatsky.org On the first page of the Blavatsky Net Homepage, look for the section on: "Refutations of Charges Against H.P. Blavatsky." In this section my paper is introduced with these words: "Rebuttal of K. Paul Johnson's books --- Johnson is selling three books that generate still more false ideas about Blavatsky. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:31:54 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Sexism Message-ID: <199612201333.IAA21147@newman.cris.com> ---------- > At 02:47 AM 12/20/96 +0000, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: > > >It seems that very often we women just get dumped on, and we've > >gotten so used to it throughout the centuries, that we just take whatever > >gets dished out to us, and we struggle on from there. No matter how sick, or > >pregnant, or anything else we are, most of us manage to carry on taking care > >of our families and all the chores. Nobody says "thank you", not ever. > > From T. Robertson: > No matter how much some radical feminists may believe that there might be 1 > or 2 men somewhere who are slightly imperfect in what I assume to be highly > insignificant ways, the responsibility for men taking women who give more > than they receive for granted is mutual. All good things create dependence, > a factor which all givers should take into account. The recipient of a gift > is not obligated to the extent of the cost to the giver, but to the extent > of the benefit to the recipient. If the cost to the giver is greater than > the benefit to the recipient, that is the giver's responsibility. This post is to all the people on this list that have opened their hearts and shared their experiences with no reserve. In relating the painful events that they have suffered because of discrimination they have had the courage to expose themselves to us in a way that others may have shrunk from. Their honesty can only be applauded. The women's movement to strive for equality willl not be deterred by any one person or group of persons. It is at the very heart of the Aquarian Age, where the group and equality will be the first order of the day. I give my heartfelt thanks to all the men and women who posted revealing and encouraging messages. They have educated and enriched me. It is unfortunate that there are certain individuals who cannot or will not empathize with another's problems, not discuss them in a straightforward manner, preferring to twist these honest posts around, confuse the issues make it seem that the oppressed were really at fault for their oppression. There is such a thing as beating a dead horse and in this case, I believe that many of us have come to that point. If someone cannot or will not see the plain truth when it is presented to them, there is nothing that we cannot do to make it come about. Life and karma will most certainly do the job for us. Again, my best regards to all those who have posted heartfelt and honest messages. I have truly appreciated them, even if others did not. Happy Holidays! -Ann E. Bermingham > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 10:45:04 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Sexism (something for everyone) Message-ID: <199612201545.KAA22322@leo.vsla.edu> After staying out of this one for weeks, I can't help making a few comments. Mostly in support of JRC's contention that the twentieth century will be recognized in the future as the time that the polarity between the sexes dramatically shifted, and a reharmonization in a new mode of equality began. Although I have agreed with Liesel, Kym, Ann, JRC et al far more than with Tom, there are some subtleties in all this that I think worth mentioning. For one, sexism is not a set of attitudes and behaviors imposed *on* women *by* men. Women are very intricately involved in their own oppression; for example Anita Hill was disbelieved by just as many women as men, and the female jurors in the Simpson trial concluded that spousal abuse had absolutely nothing to do with the case. Someone else has mentioned that women executives may be just as biased in favor of hiring men as men are. As I recall, male support for the ERA was higher than female, and the same goes for abortion rights. (Probably in both cases because the Christian right has more female than male supporters, like any church-related movement.) Finally, although men wreak far more physical harm on women and children than vice-versa, and murder their partners more often, research has shown that women are physically abusive to their mates and children at the same rate that men are. Lesbians are particularly prone to this problem, from what I read in the gay/lesbian press, with higher rates than heteros of either sex, or gay men. So it isn't so much that male *persons* are running amok as that the male *principle* if you will is doing so in *both* sexes. For example, more than once I have seen women ignore, or throw over, a sensitive, egalitarian, kind man in preference for a brute who is guaranteed to break their heart, if nothing else. Even when the nice guy is better looking and richer than the brute! I don't mean to shift blame here, or maybe I do. It's *all* our problem, and not one in which all the guilt is on men. I once lived in an apartment above a fighting couple, and she always started screaming at him the minute he got home from work, getting more and more abusive, until I'd hear things crashing, and assumed he was hitting her to shut her up. I called the police three times and both of them denied there was a problem when the police arrived. I moved out soon. A tragic situation indeed. If we believe in reincarnation, we know that this godawful situation between the sexes is one that we *all* have constructed together, and we all need to work together to heal. Another weird and counter-intuitive research result. Actually, TTT, handsome men are much more advantaged in business than beautiful women. This came out several years ago, and I don't remember the research design, but do recall that it was really striking-- like a handsome man having twice the success rate at getting hired than an ugly one, but a beautiful woman having absolutely no better success than an ugly one. (Cocktail waitress jobs were presumably not part of the study-- this was just the business world.) Another comment, and I will close. Male nurses and librarians are every bit as financially disadvantaged by belonging to a "traditionally female" occupation as female physicians and lawyers are advantaged by belonging to a "traditionally male" one. We're in the same boat, sister. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:00:15 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Karma Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961220180015.006cce3c@xs4all.nl> The Triaist wrote: >"To wrap it up, the more good you do in your lifetime, the better the chances >that you and your sisters and brothers will have good things happen to them. >The flip side of the coin, the more bad you do, the better the chances that >bad things will happen. Poor Jesus Christ, Mozart, Chopin and all the noble good men/women who suffered so much in their lives in spite of them having given so much to humanity. In my opinion Karma is related to the quality of one's actions. That is to say one's actions (or lack of it), thoughts, giving way to impulses, etc. etc. tie one down to a particular level of being. Every act is an affirmation of belonging to a mentality. As a crude example, if one consorts with thieves and criminals and show by your actions that you are part of their world, full of agression, jealousy, hatred one should not be surprised to become a victim of it oneself some day. Another aspect Karma is that it is the price one has to pay in suffering to move away from one level to another. Tearing oneself from the ingrained behaviour, way of thinking and acting on one level in order to move to a better one. In short uprooting oneself. Constantly dying from one mode of living to another. However, this does not explain the suffering of noble minds. I do not think there is an exact retribution. IT may even be so that somewhere in evolution Gods hankered for suffering as desert people do for rain. Some spiritualistic communications have it that the dead would welcome earthly suffering as a means to work on oneself. This in contrast to their spheres where such opportunities for improvement of the quality of one's being are non-existent because there is no resistance. The mechanical laws of our world who work without regard to who is being affected by it, present opportunities to show one's true character. Michael Rogge Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:22:45 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: To Mark and Tom - everybody, actually Message-ID: Hi Can you tell me what times and dates on which the users at your end would be trying to use theos-l? Are you also trying to use any chat? If I know the info, let me see if I can get on Internet even if it is late at night here. MKR On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Bee Brown wrote: > On Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:30:13 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >I just want to acknowledge the questions and thoughts you directed to me a > >few days ago and let you know that I won't have time to respond as I would > >have liked. I've hit a time bind, with a need to work long hours etc, plus > >the more usual Christmas carry-on. > > > >Thanks to all. I'll keep reading theos-l as it comes in, except for 3rd to > >8th of January when I'll be away at the NZ TS's annual convention. > > > >Murray > > > > > Bee here, Murray. > We will have my computer set up for the Convention at the Lodge and I > hope that Theos-l will be kind enough to respond to any of the members > trying out the e-mail discussion list. I would like to increase > awareness of Theosophy on the Internet and there is a workshop on this > on Monday morning. > If anyone on this list will be around on 5th to 7th Jan, would you > please tune in and see if we have been trying to chat to someone. From > the USA side, we will be chatting during your night time so hopefully > others will not be on that time line. > Murray will be able to have a quick read if he has time from all the > other activities. > Cheers. > Bee > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:26:53 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Beating for Doss Message-ID: Hi Nice to see your message. All of us have priorities and the most difficult thing is to recognized an opportunity when one presents itself. I agree that we can contribute everytime we meet or deal with anyone in our daily lives. It just happened that the incident I mentioned caught my attention when I could devote some time and I consider it was very fortunate. It also taught me that if one is determined, sometimes a single person can make a difference. MKR On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Thoa Tran wrote: > MKR: > >Beating my own drums (which I normally don't like - I like others beating > >my drums - it makes life easier): > > I am beating, Doss, with a heroic rhythm. I think it's great that you are > letting us know what you are doing. It inspires the rest of us to do what > we can, and contribute our 2 cents. To put an energy to doing some good, > along with your personal life and your professional life, requires great > sacrifices. I've been spread thin with all the obligations I've had. It > is only now that I'm able to sit back and sigh about my soul. When I was > reading about the cosmos, I'm wondering what has that got to do with > helping me be strong and compassionate in my dealings with life. I get > more inspiration from my readings about Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and > others who have made their sacrifices. Most of the time, I'm conflicted > about how much I should devote to myself and how much I should devote to > outside activities. If one cannot make oneself strong, one cannot be > strong for others. Also, heroism can be as simple as being a kindly > influence to everyone one meets. Then again, now and then, one can do more > than what one usually does. > > TTT S=o) > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:44:00 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Magazines on the Web Message-ID: <199612202050.PAA27102@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > If this is the trend, soon there would be chaos in publishing industry. Some > of the publishers are likely to run into rough financial seas, especially > those trying to make money on *revised* or *abridged* editions of books > whose copyright has expired a long time ago. In this category will fall TPH. > > Next in line, in my judgement, are the magazines who may lose readership. > Already there are ezines. > > Would like to watch developments with interest. Along those lines, Gnosis magazine has just debuted their web site and will be putting up introductory articles. Their URL is: http://www.lumen.org -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:50:14 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Sexism, TTT Message-ID: <199612202050.PAA27112@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > Bravo. I understand where you are coming from, mainly because my past is much > like yours. However, with me, I haven't "filled out" quite yet. > Unfortunately, I don't think "yet" qualifies, for I am way past the blooming > point. My body is not shaped like a V. It never was. I was never much for > making friends. I had a total of one until my last years of high school, when > I met quite a few people who weren't quite as "fashion conscious". I have > been told that I have an attractive face and personality, but with many women, > often the beautiful ones (notice I said "often" not "always"), face and body > don't count. It's the gluts and the pecs they look at. I have neither. Gluts? Pecs? I never dated a man who had much of either. I loved a man mostly for his mind. If he could challenge me mentally, I wouldn't be bored. Luckily, I married a combination of Dr. WHo and a Zen Master, who tardis is continually confounding him. His office is maze of pc boards and half of Radio Shack electronics store. I bought him a T-shirt for Christmas that says, "You can never be too good-looking or own too much equipment." You sound like a pretty smart guy to me, John. All you have to do is find someone as smart as yourself. : -) -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 15:07:34 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: <199612202107.QAA08684@cliff.cris.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > From: K. Paul Johnson > > > > Last night I was talking to my friend Martha about seasonal > > matters, and we started to compare notes on how we feel at this > > time of year. I had observed, over the last eight years or so, > > a very particular thing that happens at the solstice. Late > > November and early December are always my low point of the year > > in terms of energy, enthusiasm, creativity. Something inside > > just sorta shrivels up, and I go into "just get through it > > somehow" mode. Like a mini- version of Seasonal Affective > > Depression. But when that shortest day comes and goes, there's > > a tremendous turnabout within. Something awakens, and from > > late December through the spring equinox I'm in an intense, > > almost manic creative phase. Have written all my books that > > way-- totally focused through the winter, ready to go out and > > play when spring comes. Then, through spring, summer and into > > fall, I'm much more extraverted, wanting to be outdoors and > > with people, less able to concentrate on literary work. Those > > times are good for editing, indexing, minor revisions, but not > > real creativity of the winter kind. > > > > > So, some questions to people on the lists I'm addressing: > > 1. Does this ring a bell with you? How? > > For many years I've felt a downturn in energy during the > last few days before the winter solstice. Since the cusp of my > sixth house is 1 degree Capricorn, that's when the Sun > inconjuncts my Ascendant. After the Sun has passed into > the sixth house, I've always experienced a rise in energy. > > In Chicago, the real inner turning time is in January and into > February. That is usually the coldest time of the year. At the > end of January last year it got down to 25 below. No one was > going anywhere. I huddled next to my computer and got a lot > of writing done. > > > 2. Do those of you down under have the same thing in June? > > 3. Any literary references that address this phenomenon come > > to mind? > > > >From the Gnostic Calendar by Stephan Hoeller: > > "While the joyousnss and the mystery of Christmas can elevate people > greatly, let the Gnostic pause to remember that the infant Christ can be > born in the soul, there to be nutured by the person as a mother suckles her > infant, so that the Christ consciousness may grow into its full stature in > the life of mankind." > > This reminded me of Liesel's post where she spoke of raising her children. > Perhaps we all become > mothers in our endeavour to nurture and expand the Light. > > -Ann E. Bermingham > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:09:23 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Magazines on the Web Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > Along those lines, Gnosis magazine has just debuted their web site and will > be putting up introductory articles. Their URL is: > > http://www.lumen.org > Thanks for the good info. ..MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:37:22 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Level Playing Field Message-ID: <961220183124_1255487339@emout01.mail.aol.com> A blizzard of snow! I'm going to aim the snow blower at you. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 23:58:15 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: <19961220235803.AAA9034@LOCALNAME> At 02:10 AM 12/20/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Ring a bell? How Christmasie. Yeah, the "just get through it somehow" >statement rings a bell. Bah. Humbug! >Christmas seems to be a time, like no other, to >recognize just how pitifully lonely you are I use such times as a reminder that the ego is illusory, and to _joyfully_ play with my cat. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:15:50 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <32BB2C36.7337@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > If women have it so much worse than men do, why do they live longer? Or is > it sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is different? As long as you don't believe that, if a woman dies at age 25, then all men who reach that birthday must be put to death. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 01:15:03 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <19961221011451.AAA14048@LOCALNAME> At 12:25 AM 12/21/96 +0000, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >> If women have it so much worse than men do, why do they live longer? Or is >> it sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is different? > As long as you don't believe that, if a woman dies at age 25, then all >men who reach that birthday must be put to death. > > Bart Lidofsky This statement was a challenge to figure out, but, since I have plenty of free time, I thought I would give it a try. I'm still not sure I have done so correctly. If you are saying that it is sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is different as long as you don't believe that, if a woman dies at age 25, then all men who reach that birthday must be put to death, then, according to you, I am sexist, since I believe that the expected longevity of men and women is different and I do not believe that, if a woman dies at age 25, then all men who reach that birthday must be put to death. If you are saying that, if any woman dies before any man, the expected longevity of women cannot be longer than the expected longevity of men, then this would reflect a misunderstanding of what I meant by the word "expected," which refers to an average, not to any specific cases. Is one of these a correct inderstanding of what you meant, or are there other possibilities? All I know is that if this was a Mensa test question, I had better not try to join. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:47:33 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Holy S--t! Message-ID: Leisel: >Someone talked about the significance of the letter M. Well, let me tell you >what the letter M means to me. When I went to school, I used to put a letter >M on my friends' or my own forehead for good luck. This is how M means good >luck. >There's a French word merde, which means, well, I'll say manure. When you >walk around the streets of Paris, at least in the days when I walked around >there, there was a lot of dog manure on the narrow sidewalks. And I suppose >rather than get angry at stepping in it, people used to say that it was good >luck. So merde, which means "S---" means good luck. It's good to know that it means good luck. Wait until I tell all parties concerned that they're lucky s--ts. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 17:55:21 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: To Ann Message-ID: JRC: >ANYway ... what I do understand is that arguing with Tom will do nothing - >because everything anyone says will be re-configured as it enters the >world of his assumptions, and no one stands a chance in that world - in it >he *is* a poor innocent victim of the irrationality, emotionalism, and >(tee hee) "sexism" of the women and some of the men on this "feminist" >list. Are you saying that Tom is a Borg collective of his own? Like you, I find that it is useless arguing with Tom (Tom Borg: Resistance is futile!). I think by this time everyone would have already formed their opinions one way or the other. However, I am glad that April came out with her recent posts. Like Liesel, it did my heart good. Did you notice that the present mood of the list is more heartfelt than intellectual? In that environment, Tom's "logic" practically disappears. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:55:52 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Do you feel the solstice coming? Message-ID: <199612210155.SAA29631@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >>(Kym wrote) Christmas seems to be a time, like no other, to >>recognize just how pitifully lonely you are >I use such times as a reminder that the ego is illusory, and to _joyfully_ >play with my cat. Cats are superior to men and women - the facts are irrefutable. Nota bene: Your name has yet to be scratched off my list as the sender of that Christmas card so full of Yuletide cheer and verbal thuggery. Jollily, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:00:06 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: MMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... Message-ID: >TTT, do you, MMM, find me attractive? hehehe. >--- >The Triaist TTT (purring): We semi-vegetarians do looooove carrots so. Especially fresh ones. Triaist man, you got it. You figured out that loving us women is better than fighting us. Tommy baby, are you listening? (batting eyelashes) S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 18:05:01 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Sexism, TTT Message-ID: The Triaist: >I have been told that I have an attractive face and personality, but with >many >women, often the beautiful ones (notice I said "often" not >"always"), face and >body don't count. It's the gluts and the pecs they >look at. Based on a poll of myself and my women friends, we prefer a wonderful smile, a great personality, and a sense of humor. Gluts and pecs are for looking at and maybe touch, but a great personality is for having a lifetime relationship with. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:08:24 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Men and women, life and death Message-ID: <199612210208.TAA29827@snowden.micron.net> Tom Robertson wrote: >> If women have it so much worse than men do, why do they live longer? Or is >> it sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is >>different? Bart responded: > As long as you don't believe that, if a woman dies at age 25, then all >men who reach that birthday must be put to death. The only thing I can say to both of you is: Huh? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:51:45 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Sexism (something for everyone) Message-ID: <199612210251.TAA00568@snowden.micron.net> Paul wrote: > So it isn't so much that male *persons* are running amok as that the male >*principle* if you will is doing so in *both* sexes. Agreed. We can identify with a group, involve ourselves in "group politics," and still manage, quite skillfully, to dodge looking inward - god forbid, we may discover that we are "like those we despise." >For example, >more than once I have seen women ignore, or throw over, a >sensitive, egalitarian, kind man in preference for a brute who >is guaranteed to break their heart, if nothing else. Even when >the nice guy is better looking and richer than the brute! I believe this has more to do with a person's self-esteem; what they feel they "deserve." It isn't that women do not want these sensitive, egalitarian, and kind men - it's just that, sometimes, never having such a rare and fine man is easier to deal with than to fight the feeling you will be unable to keep him. There is also that familiar notion that we gravitate toward what we know - if we grow up in a dysfunctional household, we often re-create the same dysfunction in our own household. >I don't mean to shift blame here, or maybe I do. It's *all* >our problem, and not one in which all the guilt is on men. I >once lived in an apartment above a fighting couple, and she >always started screaming at him the minute he got home from work, getting >more and more abusive, until I'd hear things crashing, and >assumed he was hitting her to shut her up. Excuse me here!!!! "Hitting her to shut her up?" I do not believe that was the reason he was hitting her, Paul. He was hitting her because he could not handle his anger - he should have left for the night, or left permanently. There is no justifiable reason to strike someone, save self-defense. >Another comment, and I will close. Male nurses and librarians >are every bit as financially disadvantaged by belonging to a >"traditionally female" occupation as female physicians and >lawyers are advantaged by belonging to a "traditionally male" >one. Which proves: jobs that are considered "woman's work" are still thought of as having less value, regardless of the contribution to society. >We're in the same boat, sister. Yes, and thanks for rocking it. . . ;-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:13:56 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <32BB55F4.2341@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > At 12:25 AM 12/21/96 +0000, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > >Tom Robertson wrote: > > >> If women have it so much worse than men do, why do they live longer? Or is > >> it sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is > different? > > > As long as you don't believe that, if a woman dies at age 25, then all > >men who reach that birthday must be put to death. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > This statement was a challenge to figure out, but, since I have plenty of > free time, I thought I would give it a try. I'm still not sure I have done > so correctly. It is sexist to take a statistical correlation by gender without knowing the cause, and insisting on applying it across the board to all cases, as in, statistics say that women live longer than men, therefore if any man lives longer than any woman, it is unnatural, therefore any man who outlives any woman should be put to death. Or, if some statistical studies say women are more submissive than men, then men should dominate women. Or, if some statistical studies say that men concentrate more on logic and women concentrate more on emotion, then women should not be in positions of authority. In several of your inital message(s) to this newsgroup, you took the standpoint (remember, it was you who stated we should not try to read between the lines) that a few unsubstantiated statistical correlations should govern how all women and all men are treated. You expressed surprise with the level of hostility with which those concepts were greeted. I was attempting to use an example that even you would find ridiculous to point out the initial illogic. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:44:33 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <19961221044422.AAA25249@LOCALNAME> At 03:16 AM 12/21/96 +0000, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >> >> At 12:25 AM 12/21/96 +0000, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >> >> >Tom Robertson wrote: >> >> >> If women have it so much worse than men do, why do they live longer? Or is >> >> it sexist to believe that the expected longevity of men and women is >> different? >> >> > As long as you don't believe that, if a woman dies at age 25, then all >> >men who reach that birthday must be put to death. >> > >> > Bart Lidofsky >> >> This statement was a challenge to figure out, but, since I have plenty of >> free time, I thought I would give it a try. I'm still not sure I have done >> so correctly. > > It is sexist to take a statistical correlation by gender without >knowing the cause, and insisting on applying it across the board to all >cases, as in, statistics say that women live longer than men, therefore >if any man lives longer than any woman, it is unnatural, therefore any >man who outlives any woman should be put to death. Who believes this? I would love to see the logical breakdown of how you get from the fact that women live longer than men on average to the conclusion that "any man who outlives any woman should be put to death." Are you trying to say that I believe this? > Or, if some statistical studies say women are more submissive than men, >then men should dominate women. If women are more submissive than men, then men are more dominant than women. > Or, if some statistical studies say that men concentrate more on logic >and women concentrate more on emotion, then women should not be in >positions of authority. Who believes this? > In several of your inital message(s) to this newsgroup, you took the >standpoint (remember, it was you who stated we should not try to read >between the lines) that a few unsubstantiated statistical correlations >should govern how all women and all men are treated. I did? When did I say anything about how all men or how all women should be treated? >You expressed >surprise with the level of hostility with which those concepts were >greeted. I was attempting to use an example that even you would find >ridiculous to point out the initial illogic. You are probably going to have to take my word for it, but the illogic is all yours. That, among much more sinister possibilities, is the kindest interpretation I have for how thoroughly you have distorted the meaning of what I said. I will try to believe you have not done so deliberately. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:50:19 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Christmas/New Year Multimedia Greetings Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961221045019.006a9104@mail.eden.com> Hi You can visit and download a very interesting multimedia demo greeting card from: http://www.greeting-cards.com/ If you have difficulty, please send me a msg and I will e-mail you the demo. It is about 275K compressed and 300+K uncompressed. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:48:06 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199612210548.WAA03635@snowden.micron.net> Michael wrote: >However, this does not explain the suffering of noble minds. >I do not think there is an exact retribution. IT may even be so that >somewhere in evolution Gods hankered for suffering as desert people do for rain. Those are interesting statements. I guess the "Gods" did hanker for suffering since we hankered for the "material" which is apparently the reason we got our "spirit/soul" dragged "down here" in the first place. Exact retribution? Boy, I sure hope there is, somehow. . .I think. Randomness (as karma), in its raw form, is kind of disquieting. I do not see how a noble mind wouldn't suffer. I can't fancy how an "enlightened one" could be trapped in a human mind and body - and not be uncomfortable. Nor can I surmise how an enlightened one, or noble mind, could glance around, see the pain and suffering of their fellow beings, and not be troubled. Yet, again, I am aware that, according to most doctrine, a sign you are on the "up-swing" is when you disentangle yourself from earthly beings and things - concentrating on the inward, on perfecting yourself, on becoming undisturbed. I don't know. . .I just don't get it, I guess. The more I read about it, the more psycho I become. The more I read about the "unearthly" the more the "earthly" beckons. >The mechanical laws >of our world who work without regard to who is being affected by it, present >opportunities to show one's true character. Boy, you got that right. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 00:50:23 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: A Joke Gone Horribly Wrong Message-ID: <199612210750.AAA05366@snowden.micron.net> >Tom wrote: >>>(Kym wrote) Christmas seems to be a time, like no other, to >>>recognize just how pitifully lonely you are >>I use such times as a reminder that the ego is illusory, and to _joyfully_ >>play with my cat. Kym wrote: >Cats are superior to men and women - the facts are irrefutable. >Nota bene: Your name has yet to be scratched off my list as the sender of that >Christmas card so full of Yuletide cheer and verbal thuggery. >Jollily, >Kym Tom has let me know, gently but firmly (via private e-mail), that he was not the one who sent me the Christmas card. Well, I KNEW he never sent me the Christmas card anyway. . .and I actually consider the Christmas card more humorous than noxious. (geez, I hope it is!) The above post was a clumsy reference to the verbal jousting Tom and I have had on theos. I realize now how he could interpret this post as insulting, and how its landing on theos was over-the-line. Whoever did send me the card is obviously getting alot of mileage out of it. . . My apologies to you, Tom. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 21 03:20:41 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <199612210820.DAA21531@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >---------- >> From: liesel f. deutsch >> . . . I'm reminded of an insulting French >> saying, which is eminently true "la vie est un desert, et la femme est le >> chameau qui nous y transporte." Life is a desert, and woman is the camel >> (also means idiot) which transports us across it. >> Actually, the word "nous" means "we", but in this case "we" means "men". >> OK, so now let's see how any old macho man can rationalize this away. >> >Perhaps the camel should periodically dump the rider and kick their butt. ; >-) > >-Ann E. Bermingham Hmmm...the guy who wrote it and the people who say it are sexist. I have a saying, however, which goes a little something like this: All men who say all women are sexist are camels. All women who say all men are sexist are camels. All camels spit a lot and usually their spit stinks. If one chooses to spit like a camel, one should expect their fellow camels to spit back. And if one does not like the smell of camel spit, one should cease being a camel, or stop spitting. If one can cease being a camel, and stop spitting, and sympathize/attempt understanding, one will probably convince all the other camels to do the same, and the camels, who will no longer be camels, will smell a lot better. ----End of saying Unfortunately, many camels only look at things from a camel's point of view, and fail to put themselves in another camel's (and non-camel's) booties, and therefore continue spitting and getting spit upon. My advice to camels, sometimes being one myself and knowing from experience, is to switch booties every once in a while and to stop getting insulted and spitting whenever another camel with a different number of humps (hehe...bad analogy, but oh well) comes along with a point of view which differs from their own. I hereby state that I have ceased being a camel, and, from now on, I would appreciate and welcome and suggestions for solutions to the problem we are most obviously facing. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 21 03:41:29 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199612210841.DAA22187@envirolink.org> Michael writes: >The Triaist wrote: > >>"To wrap it up, the more good you do in your lifetime, the better the >>chances that you and your sisters and brothers will have good things happen >>to them. The flip side of the coin, the more bad you do, the better the >>chances that bad things will happen. > >Poor Jesus Christ, Mozart, Chopin and all the noble good men/women who >suffered so much in their lives in spite of them having given so much to >humanity. It was my point that even though you may give yourself totally to humanity, you are still subject to the same chance that bad/good things will happen to you. Everyone's cumulative actions influence Karma. One person's action, good or bad, gets thrown into a "karma pool" and is "diluted" within it. The more bad that gets thrown in, the more bad exists in the karmic pool. Therefore, more "bad" karma is manifested. >In my opinion Karma is related to the quality of one's actions. That is to >say one's actions (or lack of it), thoughts, giving way to impulses, etc. >etc. tie one down to a particular level of being. Every act is an >affirmation of belonging to a mentality. > >As a crude example, if one consorts with thieves and criminals and show by >your actions that you are part of their world, full of agression, >jealousy, hatred one should not be surprised to become a victim of it >oneself some day. Most definitely, but IMO, one's actions do not have a DIRECT, personal, realation to a future life. >Another aspect Karma is that it is the price one has to pay in suffering to >move away from one level to another. Tearing oneself from the ingrained >behaviour, way of thinking and acting on one level in order to move to a >better one. >In short uprooting oneself. Constantly dying from one mode of living to >another. >However, this does not explain the suffering of noble minds. Wouldn't my theory account for this? I'm not sure, but your understanding of karma seems much like my own. You seemed to disagree with it, and I'm grateful for your opinion, but after reading your post, I'm still not quite sure about what aspect of it you disagree with... Looking forward to future correspondence... --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 21 03:44:26 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Online times Message-ID: <199612210844.DAA22228@envirolink.org> I'm usually on anywhere from 0:00EST to 5:00EST. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 21 03:49:30 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: MMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... Message-ID: <199612210849.DAA22351@envirolink.org> Thoa Tran writes: >>TTT, do you, MMM, find me attractive? hehehe. >>--- >>The Triaist > >TTT (purring): >We semi-vegetarians do looooove carrots so. Especially fresh ones. >Triaist man, you got it. You figured out that loving us women is better >than fighting us. Tommy baby, are you listening? (batting eyelashes) > >S=o) > SCORE! *laugh* --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 21 03:51:18 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sexism, TTT Message-ID: <199612210851.DAA22430@envirolink.org> Thoa Tran writes: >The Triaist: >>I have been told that I have an attractive face and personality, but with >>many >women, often the beautiful ones (notice I said "often" not >>"always"), face and >body don't count. It's the gluts and the pecs they >>look at. > >Based on a poll of myself and my women friends, we prefer a wonderful >smile, a great personality, and a sense of humor. Gluts and pecs are for >looking at and maybe touch, but a great personality is for having a >lifetime relationship with. > >TTT S=o) Agreed. I think that most of the women I run into just need to grow up a bit. In fact, I think that most of the men I run into need to grow up a bit. Maybe I should move somewhere else. :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 20:49:14 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 772 Message-ID: <199612211324.IAA26965@cliff.cris.com> ---------- >From: kymsmith@micron.net >Cats are superior to men and women - the facts are irrefutable. If our fellow theos-ler were on-line right at this minute, he would certainly agree. (Dr. Bain is in the process of moving himself and his possesions to another location.) As another cat-lover, I would also say that it is undeniably true. All I have to do is ask the four cats that live with me. Bast rules! -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 96 10:44:42 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses Message-ID: <199612211544.KAA07942@leo.vsla.edu> There seems to be some confusion about the difference between the overall thesis of a book and the specific hypotheses it offers. Since the topic has found its way onto this list, I'll answer here, with apologies to those who would rather not see such discussion. Paraphrasing what I wrote in response to John Algeo's review of The Masters Revealed in Theosophical History, the thesis of a book is its general argument that is sustained throughout. The thesis of TMR was that Theosophy was genuinely derived from HPB's encounters with adepts in many spiritual traditions, but her depiction of them was fictionalized in order to conceal their identities. The book names 32 individual acquaintances of HPB (or likely acquaintances) who are hypothesized to match either general comments she made about her Masters (e.g., Oriental Rosicrucians, Brotherhood of Luxor) or specific statements about particular Masters. One thesis, 32 hypotheses. Dr. Algeo identified the book's thesis as that "Johnson has succeeded in identifying HPB's Masters [by which he means the characters in Theosophical literature named as such] with historical persons." In fact, the thesis, if stated in parallel language, would be "Johnson has succeeded in establishing that the Masters as presented by HPB are neither totally fictional, as non-Theosophical writers have always assumed, or totally factual, as Theosophical writers have always assumed, but a very complicated mixture of fact and fiction." Although my hypotheses about particular cases have been attacked and defended, as in the cases of M. and K.H. in my exchange with Mr. Caldwell, my thesis has not really been the focus of discussion thus far. It is far more secure than any of the individual hypotheses. Indeed, it would be surprising if any future scholarly work on the subject failed to accept it. The position that HPB never lied about the Masters is absolutely untenable, as is the position that she never told the truth about them. Yet those two positions have dominated the entire literature about her until my books came along. What is interesting now is not whether my thesis is well established-- it is-- but what particular mixture of fact and fiction will be discovered as other researchers probe deeper into these mysteries. All I claim is to have made a significant beginning in that direction. So Mr. Caldwell's subtitle is in error when it refers to a "thesis" about M. and K.H. That Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh are their primary prototypes are two hypotheses. The thesis is about all HPB's Masters. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 12:42:37 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: to Tom Robertson Message-ID: <32BC218C.2B79@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > You are probably going to have to take my word for it, but the illogic is > all yours. That, among much more sinister possibilities, is the kindest > interpretation I have for how thoroughly you have distorted the meaning of > what I said. I will try to believe you have not done so deliberately. What I am trying to tell you is that, regardless of your true beliefs, that is how you came off initially here, and that is the impression you left. And, instead of stating that, in the limited medium of email, you made statements which did not exactly reflect how you felt, you dug in, stating simultaneously that we should not try to read your mind, and faulting us for failing to read your mind. This has been somewhat compounded by the fact that you have clearly espoused ideas that come from a philosophy known as "Social Darwinism", which H.P.B. spoke against, and was confused with her speaking against the Darwinian theories in general (for those unaware, Social Darwinism is a philosophy which contends that, since survival of the fittest is a law of nature, it should also be the base of human societies). For example: >> Or, if some statistical studies say women are more submissive than men, >>then men should dominate women. > >If women are more submissive than men, then men are more dominant than women. Now, there are two ways that reply can be interpreted. The first is that it is entirely superfluous. The second is that you are agreeing with the statement. The problem is the difference between are, and should, between people having tendencies, and the rightness with going along with those tendencies, all the way to the rightness to enforcing statistical tendencies on those who do not have those tendencies, to their disadvantage. If one puts something in a message, then we generally have to assume that it is not intended as being superfluous. You continue to send equivocating messages. If you do not intend to do this, then you should be more careful. If you do intend to do this, then one must come to the conclusion that you are here as a troll, and should be treated as such. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 10:46:54 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Eyes on the list Message-ID: <32BC3081.5E25@withoutwalls.com> >MKR Wrote: >Can you tell me what times and dates on which the users at your end would >be trying to use theos-l? Are you also trying to use any chat? >If I know the info, let me see if I can get on Internet even if it is >late at night here. We are in San Francisco, CA. We look for the list several times through the day and night as TTT is a morning gal and I'm a bit of a night owl. Suffice to say, our eyes will be on the lookout for your convention posts and eager to respond. Happy Holidays to all. May the solar light shine forth from within you this season. Love, Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 12:00:51 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Nobility Message-ID: <32BC41E2.7FD7@withoutwalls.com> Michael wrote: Poor Jesus Christ, Mozart, Chopin and all the noble good men/women who suffered so much in their lives in spite of them having given so much to humanity. However, this does not explain the suffering of noble minds. I do not think there is an exact retribution. It may even be so that somewhere in evolution God hankered for suffering as desert people do for rain. _____ In addition to whatever personal karma they may have brought with them, I've always just assumed that their efforts to elevate the race (either consciously or unconsciously) brought them face to face with the inertia of humanity. I see it as if they were lifting a heavily soaked, global blanket from underneath. Despite their best efforts, the weight inevitably crushes them. If they're lucky, they'll get it to lift a tiny fraction of an inch, and it'll hold. This appears to the rest of us like revolutionary change. Most people are too selfish to even attempt it. Some others do it in spite of being selfish. There are exceptions and genuine moments of altruism. Then there are extraordinary personages like Jesus. In all such cases there is love of humanity at work. Real love and compassion. We should be grateful. Whatever the causes or who initiates them, it falls on the rest of us to assimilate, personify and suffuse the gain into the cultural "blanket-at-large". Weaving our collective destiny as we go. Happy Holidays Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:11:10 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <199612222011.NAA11180@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson K. Paul Johnson writes several paragraphs on the subject of "Thesis vs. Hypotheses." His last paragraph reads: >So Mr. Caldwell's subtitle is in error when it refers to a >"thesis" about M. and K.H. That Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh >are their primary prototypes are two hypotheses. The thesis is >about all HPB's Masters. The word "thesis" has a NUMBER of definitions, one of which is: "hypothesis," i.e. "a proposition to be proved. . . ." The word can also have OTHER meanings, so in another sense one could agree with Johnson's statement that his book THE MASTERS REVEALED has "one thesis, 32 hypotheses." Nevertheless, I think my paper is aptly titled: K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?: A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. My HOUSE OF CARDS critique was purposely limited to Johnson's thesis (suggestion, hypothesis, or conjecture---call it whatever you want to!!) concerning the Masters Koot Hoomi and Morya. One reason I focused on these two Masters was because they were "the principal Masters in question. . ." (as Dr. Godwin points out on p. xv of his Foreword to TMR) ". . .with whom HPB claimed to be in contact. . . ." [Why are these two Masters on the cover of TMR with Blavatsky and Prince Ragoczy? Why does Dr. French on the back cover of TMR specifically mention Morya and Koot Hoomi? etc.] Another reason I focused my research and paper on the Masters Koot Hoomi and Morya was because Johnson claimed he could "make a persuasive case" for M.'s and K. H.'s "identities" as the "historical figures" Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh. There were also other reasons in deciding to limit my paper primarily to these two Masters. Jerry HE has mentioned one of these other reasons in his recent discussions with Johnson. I believe I have shown in my paper that Johnson's "persuasive" case is nothing but a "house of cards", i.e. "a structure. . .that is insubstantial, shaky" and has, in light of my critique, finally collapsed. Speaking of words and their meanings, Johnson has his own "definitions" of such terms as "Master", "Adept" and "Mahatma". John Algeo, Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Richard Smolley and others have commented about the confusion Johnson's "redefinitions" have caused. If one looks at the 32 individuals listed in the TMR Table of Contents as "Adepts" and "Mahatmas", how many of these people were really H.P.B.'s adepts, Masters or Mahatmas? For example, could James Peebles, Charles Sotheran, or Mikhail Katkov have been any of HPB's "Adepts" or "Masters"? Maybe Jerry HE will REPOST some of his previous Theos-l/Theos-Roots discussions that he has had with Johnson on Johnson's redefining of the terms Master, Adept and Mahatma. As one reads Johnson's various writings on the Masters KH and M (as well as on the other Theosophical Masters), one needs to keep constantly in mind the following observation by Dr. John Algeo: "The rhetoric of . . . [Johnson's] presentation disguises the weakness of the evidence, perhaps even from Johnson himself." (The American Theosophist, Late Spring/Early Summer 1995, p. 12.) In my research on Johnson's books, I have found Algeo's observation to be correct time and time again. Daniel Caldwell >Date: Sat, 21 Dec 96 10:44:42 EST >From: "K. Paul Johnson" >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses >Message-ID: <199612211544.KAA07942@leo.vsla.edu> > >There seems to be some confusion about the difference between >the overall thesis of a book and the specific hypotheses it >offers. Since the topic has found its way onto this list, I'll >answer here, with apologies to those who would rather not see >such discussion. > >Paraphrasing what I wrote in response to John Algeo's review of >The Masters Revealed in Theosophical History, the thesis of a >book is its general argument that is sustained throughout. >The thesis of TMR was that Theosophy was genuinely derived from HPB's >encounters with adepts in many spiritual traditions, but her depiction >of them was fictionalized in order to conceal their identities. The book >names 32 individual acquaintances of HPB (or likely >acquaintances) who are hypothesized to match either >general comments she made about her Masters (e.g., Oriental >Rosicrucians, Brotherhood of Luxor) or specific statements >about particular Masters. One thesis, 32 hypotheses. Dr. Algeo >identified the book's thesis as that "Johnson has succeeded in >identifying HPB's Masters [by which he means the characters in Theosophical >literature named as such] with historical persons." In fact, >the thesis, if stated in parallel language, would be "Johnson >has succeeded in establishing that the Masters as presented by >HPB are neither totally fictional, as non-Theosophical writers >have always assumed, or totally factual, as Theosophical writers >have always assumed, but a very complicated mixture of fact and >fiction." > >Although my hypotheses about particular cases have been attacked >and defended, as in the cases of M. and K.H. in my exchange >with Mr. Caldwell, my thesis has not really been the focus of >discussion thus far. It is far more secure than any of the individual >hypotheses. Indeed, it would be surprising if any future >scholarly work on the subject failed to accept it. The >position that HPB never lied about the Masters is absolutely >untenable, as is the position that she never told the truth >about them. Yet those two positions have dominated the entire >literature about her until my books came along. What is >interesting now is not whether my thesis is well established-- >it is-- but what particular mixture of fact and fiction >will be discovered as other researchers probe deeper into these >mysteries. All I claim is to have made a significant beginning >in that direction. > >So Mr. Caldwell's subtitle is in error when it refers to a >"thesis" about M. and K.H. That Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh >are their primary prototypes are two hypotheses. The thesis is >about all HPB's Masters. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 14:35:50 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Thankfulness Message-ID: Tom Robertson wrote in 771: >At 02:47 AM 12/20/96 +0000, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >>It seems that very often we women just get dumped on, and we've >>gotten so used to it throughout the centuries, that we just take whatever >>gets dished out to us, and we struggle on from there. No matter how sick, or >>pregnant, or anything else we are, most of us manage to carry on taking care >>of our families and all the chores. Nobody says "thank you", not ever. >No matter how much some radical feminists may believe that there might be 1 >or 2 men somewhere who are slightly imperfect in what I assume to be highly >insignificant ways, the responsibility for men taking women who give more >than they receive for granted is mutual. All good things create dependence, >a factor which all givers should take into account. The recipient of a gift >is not obligated to the extent of the cost to the giver, but to the extent >of the benefit to the recipient. If the cost to the giver is greater than >the benefit to the recipient, that is the giver's responsibility. I used to think in that fashion. If my mother gave me the guilt trip by listing all of the things she has done for me, I would think (wouldn't dare talk back) that it was her choice to give birth to me. I never asked for all she's done for me. Now that I am older and wiser, I think of many things I should be grateful for. As a single unwed mother in Vietnam, she could have given or thrown away her brand new baby. In Vietnam, she could have killed her baby and nobody would have cared. My stepfather told me that when he was in Vietnam, he walked by a woman who was selling her young girl. He gave her money so that she would stop trying to sell her. I used to gripe about the fact that she had me live with another family in the country, instead of being with her in the city while she works. I now realize that she was having me safely taken care of while she brings in money. I used to gripe at the fact that my clothes were home made or came from the thrift shop. I now realize that I was always clothed. I used to gripe that she always prepared food simply and routinely. I now realize that I was never hungry. I used to gripe that she was too strict and punished me too often. I now realize that helped to keep me out of trouble. We all could have more. We all received benefits that we didn't ask for. Sometimes we feel that what we receive was not enough. If we opened a present that contained an item that we feel we don't want, instead of being thankful that we have received a gift, we wish that the giver had given us what we wanted. I sometimes find that tacky fake flower clock handy when all my other clocks broke down. When I sit still and think of all that I've received, I'm pretty darn lucky and thankful to all the givers who still gave even though they did not receive a thank you. Time to call mom. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 15:00:17 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: thankfulness Message-ID: <199612212300.PAA12238@proxy1.ba.best.com> Daddies give, give and receive no thank-yous, too. Time to call dad. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:21:53 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: sexism Message-ID: <199612212334.SAA05475@ultra1.dreamscape.com> K PAul Johnson, You're absolutely right. We've all lived with the same mindset for so long that we just accept it as being the way things are, both men and women. It's a mindset that's been part of our civilisation from beyond Bible days. That's how far back a male god started to take over, & lord it over everybody. One of my feminist books points out that when the Bible talks about conquering the heathen, these heathen were ususally worshipers of the Goddess. What needs to be done now, is for modern men and women both to recognize what's been happening, and establish a healthier mindset, because the mindset, as it is or was, led us to a very lopsided civilisation. The new mindset, I think, should not go back to having the Goddess rule over the whole universe, but a sharing of gods & godesses, with each contributing his or her good qualities. It takes both men and women to accomplish this. Only, when you look back over what's been, if you are a woman, you get darn mad at some of the things the men had the nerve to do. Many of them still do. Which doesn't change the fact that we've all got to wake up to this. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 19:21:42 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: T/theosophy/Adept/Marriage/Vegetarianism Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961222012142.0067dde8@mail.eden.com> Here is something that we can all discuss. It is, IMHO, a highly relevant Theosophical issue from whatever organizational or model point of view you look at it. -------------------------------------------------- In pp. 17, The Mahatma Letters to APS (Third Edition TPH Adyar 1962) is the following statement. "It is true that a married man cannot be an adept, yet without striving to become a 'Raja Yogi' he can acquire certain powers and do much good to mankind and often more, by remaining within the precincts of this world of his." ---------------------------------------------------- Let us look at Lord Gautama Buddha: He was born a prince in India. He belonged to the Kshathria (warrior) Caste -- as all Royalty in India are. As a Kshatria, it is ok to eat meat and drink alcohol. So there is a strong likely hood that he would have had meat diet, even though when he became a sanyasi he was a vegetarian and surely when he was enlightened he did preach harmlessness. As a young prince he was married and had a son. This was before he abdicated his royalty and became a sanyasin. It is generally considered by Theosophical students that Lord Buddha is is one of the greatest adepts and he did influence billions of men and women by his teachings. I am one of those influenced very strongly by his teachings. ------------------------------- Questions: I for a moment do not doubt what is stated in the ML. On the other hand we have the life of Lord Buddha. How do you reconcile the fact that Buddha (who is supposed to have been an Adept even in his previous lives) was a married man? Is it possible that there are exceptions to the rule? In the general model followed by TS(Adyar) after HPB, there is a general belief about the need to avoid meat, alcohol and if possible sex (both within the marriage and outside). I am not advocating that we all indulge in promiscuity or get drunk or use mind altering drugs or become meat eaters. We all know all of these things do lead to serious physical,emotional and social problems. But as inquirers into Truth, which is what Theosophy is all about, I belive there must be somewhere a consistent solution or explanation to the above statement in ML and life of Lord Buddha. Any thoughts, speculations, etc. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:21:52 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Thankfulness Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961222042152.0069730c@mail.eden.com> At 10:55 PM 12/21/96 -0500, you wrote: > We all could have more. We all received benefits that we didn't ask for. >Sometimes we feel that what we receive was not enough. If we opened a >present that contained an item that we feel we don't want, instead of being >thankful that we have received a gift, we wish that the giver had given us >what we wanted. I sometimes find that tacky fake flower clock handy when >all my other clocks broke down. When I sit still and think of all that >I've received, I'm pretty darn lucky and thankful to all the givers who >still gave even though they did not receive a thank you. Time to call mom. > >TTT S=o) A wonderful post. One of the things which makes us very realistic and practical is that I always look around me. When I am aware of the various problems and frustrations that everyone around us go through, then I realize how fortunate I am and I do not cry about my petty problems. This makes me an eternal optimist and generally a cheerful person. Such joy and cheer is very infectious and affects everyone we come into contact with. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 09:39:53 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Eyes on the list Message-ID: <32bcba94.34318053@mail> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:53:16 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >>MKR Wrote: > >>Can you tell me what times and dates on which the users at your end would >>be trying to use theos-l? Are you also trying to use any chat? > >>If I know the info, let me see if I can get on Internet even if it is >>late at night here. > >We are in San Francisco, CA. We look for the list several times through >the >day and night as TTT is a morning gal and I'm a bit of a night owl. >Suffice to say, our eyes will be on the lookout for your convention >posts >and eager to respond. > >Happy Holidays to all. >May the solar light shine forth from within you this season. >Love, >Mark >-------- >WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space >http://www.withoutwalls.com >E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com > Many thanks for everyone's kind responses. I will be online from Sunday 5th to end of Tuesday 7th Jan. We are ahead of you timewise and no doubt, there will be nothing from us during the dead of night. There will be lectures but the computer will be just around the corner and I am hoping to have a large screen hooked up so that you will all be very visible. Please wear your best bib and tucker !!!! he he he Many thanks Bee From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 05:28:58 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Eyes on the list Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961222112858.006ac03c@mail.eden.com> At 04:44 AM 12/22/96 -0500, you wrote: >On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 22:53:16 -0500 (EST), you wrote: > >>>MKR Wrote: >> >>>Can you tell me what times and dates on which the users at your end would >>>be trying to use theos-l? Are you also trying to use any chat? >> >>>If I know the info, let me see if I can get on Internet even if it is >>>late at night here. >> >>We are in San Francisco, CA. We look for the list several times through >>the >>day and night as TTT is a morning gal and I'm a bit of a night owl. >>Suffice to say, our eyes will be on the lookout for your convention >>posts >>and eager to respond. >> >>Happy Holidays to all. >>May the solar light shine forth from within you this season. >>Love, >>Mark >>-------- >>WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space >>http://www.withoutwalls.com >>E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com >> >Many thanks for everyone's kind responses. I will be online from >Sunday 5th to end of Tuesday 7th Jan. We are ahead of you timewise and >no doubt, there will be nothing from us during the dead of night. >There will be lectures but the computer will be just around the corner >and I am hoping to have a large screen hooked up so that you will all >be very visible. Please wear your best bib and tucker !!!! he he he >Many thanks >Bee Hi It is so wonderful that you are going all out to show off Internet at your Convention. Please convey the Greetings and Best Wishes from San Antonio, Texas, USA Lodge to the Convention and every one. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 12:20:52 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Christmas Message-ID: Here is an interesting post. > Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 10:31:16 -0500 > From: ewa@gis.net > Subject: words X XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX "BOAS FESTAS" "JOYEUX NOEL" "VESELE VANOCE" "MELE KALIKIMAKA" "NODLAG SONA DHUIT" "BLWYDDYN NEWYDD DDA" "GOD JUL" "BUON ANNO" "FELIZ NATAL" "FELIZ NAVIDAD" "MERRY CHRISTMAS" "KALA CHRISTOUGENA" "VROLIJK KERSTFEEST" "FROHLICHE WEIHNACHTEN" "BUON NATALE-GODT NYTAR" "HUAN YING SHENG TAN CHIEH" "WESOLYCH SWIAT-SRETAN BOZIC" "MOADIM LESIMHA-LINKSMU KALEDU" "HAUSKAA JOULUA-AID SAID MOUBARK" "'N PRETTIG KERSTMIS" "ONNZLLISTA UUTTA VUOTTA" "Z ROZHDESTYOM KHRYSTOVYM" "NADOLIG LLAWEN-GOTT NYTTSAR" "FELIC NADAL-GOJAN KRISTNASKON" "S NOVYM GODOM-FELIZ ANO NUEVO" "GLEDILEG JOL-NOELINIZ KUTLU OLSUM" "EEN GELUKKIG NIEUWJAAR-SRETAN BOSIC" "KRIHSTLINDJA GEZUAR-KALA CHRISTOUGENA" "SELAMAT HARI NATAL - LAHNINGU NAJU METU" "SARBATORI FERICITE-BUON ANNO" "ZORIONEKO GABON-HRISTOS SE RODI" "BOLDOG KARACSONNY-VESELE VIANOCE " "MERRY CHRISTMAS - - HAPPY NEW YEAR" "ROOMSAID JOULU PUHI -KUNG HO SHENG TEN" "FELICES PASUAS-EIN GLUCKICHES NEWJAHR" "PRIECIGUS ZIEMAN SVETKUS SARBATORI VESLLE" "BONNE ANNEBLWYDDYN NEWYDD DDADRFELIZ NATAL" XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX Jingle bells :-) eido "The word is not the thing". From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:11:10 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <199612222011.NAA11180@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson K. Paul Johnson writes several paragraphs on the subject of "Thesis vs. Hypotheses." His last paragraph reads: >So Mr. Caldwell's subtitle is in error when it refers to a >"thesis" about M. and K.H. That Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh >are their primary prototypes are two hypotheses. The thesis is >about all HPB's Masters. The word "thesis" has a NUMBER of definitions, one of which is: "hypothesis," i.e. "a proposition to be proved. . . ." The word can also have OTHER meanings, so in another sense one could agree with Johnson's statement that his book THE MASTERS REVEALED has "one thesis, 32 hypotheses." Nevertheless, I think my paper is aptly titled: K. PAUL JOHNSON'S HOUSE OF CARDS?: A Critical Examination of Johnson's Thesis on the Theosophical Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi. My HOUSE OF CARDS critique was purposely limited to Johnson's thesis (suggestion, hypothesis, or conjecture---call it whatever you want to!!) concerning the Masters Koot Hoomi and Morya. One reason I focused on these two Masters was because they were "the principal Masters in question. . ." (as Dr. Godwin points out on p. xv of his Foreword to TMR) ". . .with whom HPB claimed to be in contact. . . ." [Why are these two Masters on the cover of TMR with Blavatsky and Prince Ragoczy? Why does Dr. French on the back cover of TMR specifically mention Morya and Koot Hoomi? etc.] Another reason I focused my research and paper on the Masters Koot Hoomi and Morya was because Johnson claimed he could "make a persuasive case" for M.'s and K. H.'s "identities" as the "historical figures" Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh. There were also other reasons in deciding to limit my paper primarily to these two Masters. Jerry HE has mentioned one of these other reasons in his recent discussions with Johnson. I believe I have shown in my paper that Johnson's "persuasive" case is nothing but a "house of cards", i.e. "a structure. . .that is insubstantial, shaky" and has, in light of my critique, finally collapsed. Speaking of words and their meanings, Johnson has his own "definitions" of such terms as "Master", "Adept" and "Mahatma". John Algeo, Jerry Hejka-Ekins, Richard Smolley and others have commented about the confusion Johnson's "redefinitions" have caused. If one looks at the 32 individuals listed in the TMR Table of Contents as "Adepts" and "Mahatmas", how many of these people were really H.P.B.'s adepts, Masters or Mahatmas? For example, could James Peebles, Charles Sotheran, or Mikhail Katkov have been any of HPB's "Adepts" or "Masters"? Maybe Jerry HE will REPOST some of his previous Theos-l/Theos-Roots discussions that he has had with Johnson on Johnson's redefining of the terms Master, Adept and Mahatma. As one reads Johnson's various writings on the Masters KH and M (as well as on the other Theosophical Masters), one needs to keep constantly in mind the following observation by Dr. John Algeo: "The rhetoric of . . . [Johnson's] presentation disguises the weakness of the evidence, perhaps even from Johnson himself." (The American Theosophist, Late Spring/Early Summer 1995, p. 12.) In my research on Johnson's books, I have found Algeo's observation to be correct time and time again. Daniel Caldwell >Date: Sat, 21 Dec 96 10:44:42 EST >From: "K. Paul Johnson" >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses >Message-ID: <199612211544.KAA07942@leo.vsla.edu> > >There seems to be some confusion about the difference between >the overall thesis of a book and the specific hypotheses it >offers. Since the topic has found its way onto this list, I'll >answer here, with apologies to those who would rather not see >such discussion. > >Paraphrasing what I wrote in response to John Algeo's review of >The Masters Revealed in Theosophical History, the thesis of a >book is its general argument that is sustained throughout. >The thesis of TMR was that Theosophy was genuinely derived from HPB's >encounters with adepts in many spiritual traditions, but her depiction >of them was fictionalized in order to conceal their identities. The book >names 32 individual acquaintances of HPB (or likely >acquaintances) who are hypothesized to match either >general comments she made about her Masters (e.g., Oriental >Rosicrucians, Brotherhood of Luxor) or specific statements >about particular Masters. One thesis, 32 hypotheses. Dr. Algeo >identified the book's thesis as that "Johnson has succeeded in >identifying HPB's Masters [by which he means the characters in Theosophical >literature named as such] with historical persons." In fact, >the thesis, if stated in parallel language, would be "Johnson >has succeeded in establishing that the Masters as presented by >HPB are neither totally fictional, as non-Theosophical writers >have always assumed, or totally factual, as Theosophical writers >have always assumed, but a very complicated mixture of fact and >fiction." > >Although my hypotheses about particular cases have been attacked >and defended, as in the cases of M. and K.H. in my exchange >with Mr. Caldwell, my thesis has not really been the focus of >discussion thus far. It is far more secure than any of the individual >hypotheses. Indeed, it would be surprising if any future >scholarly work on the subject failed to accept it. The >position that HPB never lied about the Masters is absolutely >untenable, as is the position that she never told the truth >about them. Yet those two positions have dominated the entire >literature about her until my books came along. What is >interesting now is not whether my thesis is well established-- >it is-- but what particular mixture of fact and fiction >will be discovered as other researchers probe deeper into these >mysteries. All I claim is to have made a significant beginning >in that direction. > >So Mr. Caldwell's subtitle is in error when it refers to a >"thesis" about M. and K.H. That Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh >are their primary prototypes are two hypotheses. The thesis is >about all HPB's Masters. > >------------------------------ > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:25:04 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Happy Holidays! Message-ID: Happy Holidays everyone! I am signing off for two weeks for the holidays. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 07:46:16 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: sexism Message-ID: <199612222324.SAA22115@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: liesel f. deutsch > Only, > when you look back over what's been, if you are a woman, you get darn mad at > some of the things the men had the nerve to do. Many of them still do. Which > doesn't change the fact that we've all got to wake up to this. > Or just get darn mad at the things either men or women do that are abusive to each other, to children or to the environment around them. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:50:14 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <961222185013_2086507470@emout11.mail.aol.com> Daniel Caldwell writes--> As one reads Johnson's various writings on the Masters KH and M (as well as on the other Theosophical Masters), one needs to keep constantly in mind the following observation by Dr. John Algeo: "The rhetoric of . . . [Johnson's] presentation disguises the weakness of the evidence, perhaps even from Johnson himself." (The American Theosophist, Late Spring/Early Summer 1995, p. 12.) Richard Ihle writes--> As one reads Dr. John Algeo, one needs to keep constantly in mind the possibility that if Johnson is right to any extent at all, it might make Algeo seem more like the president of a philosophy club rather than the bishop he may prefer to see himself as. In my opinion, the reason THE MASTERS REVEALED is the most important theosophical book to come out in many decades is not for what it proves or disproves; rather, it is for delivering the diamond-cutter's blow perfectly: either the Theosophical Society of the future will rest upon the foundation of indefectable doctrine brought via ~very~ preternatural Masters, or all theosophical teachings, including HPB's, must stand or fall on their own merit. However, there is a good chance that the ongoing commotion is as much the result of some individuals' jeopardized psychological health as it is about insuring accurate history. From a Psychogenetic standpoint, at least, there is a very big difference between the temporary delusion that one ~really is~ an idea which has the possibility of being disproven and an idea which cannot be disproven because it is God's idea or a Master's idea. The latter is the alpha-wannabe ego-formation, to be sure. Not necessarily Daniel or John Algeo or Jerry H-E or whomever else was mentioned, but a lot of people have undoubtedly fought and will continue to fight against TMR because the stakes are pretty high in a psychological sense: if something came along to increase the suspicion that God didn't really do any inscribing, many more people might start regarding Moses as just a guy with rock at our level trying to fight his way up the pecking order with the rest of us. However, with God returning, chisel in hand, we are back learning at Moses' feet as usual. Is THE MASTERS REVEALED a "house of cards"? Well, I don't know. What kind of house is there to inspect on the other side of the street? A "take-our-word-for-it house" that no one can see any more? Sometimes, I think I should start making a list of the individuals who have claimed that they were merely the humble "conduits" for That-Which-Must-Not-Be-Disputed. K. Paul Johnson does not seem judgmental in this respect; to my knowledge, he has never denigrated HPB, HPB's teachings, or even HPB's possible semi-fact-semi-fiction "Master-mailed" methodology. Is there anything at all about the thesis of THE MASTERS REVEALED which makes THE SECRET DOCTRINE less important? No. Is there anything at all about the thesis of THE MASTERS REVEALED which makes the people who are the scholars and promulgators of THE SECRET DOCTRINE less important? Well, maybe not ~actually~ but . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:57:18 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: A Joke Gone Horribly Wrong Message-ID: > > >Tom wrote: > >>>(Kym wrote) Christmas seems to be a time, like no other, to > >>>recognize just how pitifully lonely you are > > >>I use such times as a reminder that the ego is illusory, and to _joyfully_ > >>play with my cat. > Kym wrote: > > >Cats are superior to men and women - the facts are irrefutable. > > >Nota bene: Your name has yet to be scratched off my list as the sender of > that >Christmas card so full of Yuletide cheer and verbal thuggery. > > > >Jollily, > > >Kym > > > Tom has let me know, gently but firmly (via private e-mail), that he was not > the one who sent me the Christmas card. > > Well, I KNEW he never sent me the Christmas card anyway. . .and I actually > consider the Christmas card more humorous than noxious. (geez, I hope it is!) > > The above post was a clumsy reference to the verbal jousting Tom and I have > had on theos. I realize now how he could interpret this post as insulting, > and how its landing on theos was over-the-line. > > Whoever did send me the card is obviously getting alot of mileage out of it. . . > > My apologies to you, Tom. > > > Kym > > Cats are superior to humans! Just ask Simon.-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 22:14:26 EST From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: Full Moon in Capricorn Message-ID: <199612230314.3687300@microfone.net> Capricorn is the tenth sign, and the tenth labor of Hercules was slaying Cerberus, the guardian of Hades. This tenth labor of Hercules was actually to free Prometheus, the Immortal who was punished for giving the secret of Fire to mankind by being chained to a rock in Hades and eternally tormented by a vulture which tore at him. Hercules descended into Hades and found the way blocked by Cerberus, a monster with the body of a giant dog with three heads, each surrounded by snakes. When the monster sprang at him, Hercules grabbed it by the middle neck and overcame it by his strength. He then broke the chains binding Prometheus, freeing him from his suffering. **** The symbol of Capricorn is the goat, climbing the mountain until no further ascent is possible. In some writings, the symbol is also given as the crocodile or unicorn, and HPB wrote about the "Mystery of the Makara" in Capricorn. This is a most difficult sign to understand, but it must be significant that this begins the lesser cycle of tests wherein Hercules works not for himself but for the salvation of others. For the first nine signs, Hercules' labors brought gain to himself, the disciple. Beginning in Capricorn, the labors of the initiate Hercules are entirely for the benefit of others. In Scorpio, the nine-headed hydra symbolized the passions, glamours and illusions that the disciple must overcome, and Hercules triumphed by raising the monster into the light. With Cerberus, the serpents of illusion surround the heads of sensation, desire and good intentions undone. Desire is the central problem, and Hercules can now conquer desire by his own strength, gained at such cost in the successful completion of the previous labors. "Desire is the cause of all suffering," taught the Buddha. While we may not have (yet) the strength of will to completely overcome desire, we do know that others *have* succeeded and left maps that we may follow in Their footsteps, to the top of the mountain in Capricorn. ___________________ The full moon in Capricorn occurs December 24 at 3:42 pm Eastern Standard Time (USA), 8:42 pm GMT. A group meditation will be held on the subject of Letting in the Light on Monday evening at 7:00 pm EST, and again 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: Mon Dec 23 00:59:24 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Christmas Message-ID: <199612230559.AAA01908@envirolink.org> Christmas tree downloaded and saved. Excellent! :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 01:39:55 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <961223013954_1821120094@emout08.mail.aol.com> Rich, Your post has convinced me of something that I have long suspected. The TS is full of crazy people! No wonder they let me in. :) Merry xmas Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 01:41:39 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: A Joke Gone Horribly Wrong Message-ID: <961223014136_1008440417@emout18.mail.aol.com> Nootzy and Bandit just reminded me that cats are divinities. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 01:44:05 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Christmas Message-ID: <961223014405_35364069@emout16.mail.aol.com> Bah! Humbug! Ebeneezer Scrooge From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Dec 23 01:00:19 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Happy Holidays! Message-ID: <199612230600.BAA02039@envirolink.org> Thoa Tran writes: >Happy Holidays everyone! I am signing off for two weeks for the holidays. > >TTT S=o) > Have fun! --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:23:12 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <32BE87C0.7A11@eden.com> On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > ---------- > > From: m.k. ramadoss > > On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > reading yet. But I did appreciate your short piece on the > > > Bahai and their problems with the Internet. It was truly > > > > Ann: Can you excerpt or summarize the Bahai problems with the Internet? > > Due to the unusual nature of the Internet medium, many of the > > traditionalist type of organizations are going to have great trouble in > > coming to grips with it. > > > Essentially, it's about a large organization, who had control over > their communications for a long time and became very upset that individuals > in the organization could establish a mailing list and discuss issues > that they felt shouldn't be aired. > > Not really being thoroughly knowledgeable on the subject, I'd be afraid to > tackle > commentary. Perhaps KPJohnson would like to comment. > Ann: The Internet is a unique medium and every organization used to control and censor what goes out to members and readers, is going to have trouble in coming to terms. So what is happening does not surprise me. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:43:33 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Rich, > Your post has convinced me of something that I have long suspected. The TS > is full of crazy people! > No wonder they let me in. :) > Chuck the Heretic Brings to mind that old quote attributed to one of the western world's greatest Adepts, W. C. Fields: "I'd never belong to an organization that would have someone like me as a member." (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:13:30 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Re: A Question Message-ID: <32BEBDB9.1F96@withoutwalls.com> by way of Peggy Tahir wrote: > > I caught this post from theos-l....are you the Mark from Half Moon Bay > who visited the SFTS about a month ago? (If not, sincere apologies). > > Happy Holidays, > Peggy Tahir, SFTS Libraraian One and the same ;-)> Happy Holidays to you all as well. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 07:35:48 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <199612232030.PAA26454@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > Ann: The Internet is a unique medium and every organization used to > control and censor what goes out to members and readers, is going to > have > trouble in coming to terms. So what is happening does not surprise me. > I guess it's a little hard to take for an organization to realize it is losing the control it thought it had. Sort of like when a parent realizes their child has reached the age of 21 and basically has the freedom to act without their permission. Perhaps the members of these various organizations have reached the age of maturity and are beginning to think for themselves. BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't have any other details yet. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:38:26 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't > have any other details yet. > 10 ' ll getcha 20 its moderated. tee hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:09:15 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses Message-ID: <32BF030B.1AAD@worldnet.att.net> Paul, as I read your book, I too thought that your thesis was that HPB used a combination of fact and fiction, rather than your revealing any exact personalities. You left this in terms of probabilities rather than definites. I agree with you. BTW, what is your feeling on the identities given to us by Alexis? I do not recall Dan ever rebutting Alexis' identities of M and KH. I presume that he would be opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities. Dan, did you ever write a rebuttal of Alexis' revelations? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:34:57 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Married Adepts Message-ID: <32BF0911.4108@worldnet.att.net> Doss, here are my responses to your excellent questions: >In pp. 17, The Mahatma Letters to APS (Third Edition TPH Adyar 1962) is >the following statement. > > "It is true that a married man cannot be an adept, yet without >striving to become a 'Raja Yogi' he can acquire certain powers and do >much good to mankind and often more, by remaining within the precincts >of this world of his." >This should be "It is harder for a married man to be an adept, ..." As written, the quote is in error (IMHO, of course). >I for a moment do not doubt what is stated in the ML. Well, I certainly do. The words given in the ML are not biblical canon, and must be taken in context with other teachings. The very way that most were delivered (psychic precipitation) leaves lots of room for small errors. >How do you reconcile the fact that Buddha (who is supposed to have been >an Adept even in his previous lives) was a married man? >Is it possible that there are exceptions to the rule? Easy, a married man can become an adept, but usually he will be a lousy father/husband (see Herman Hesse's (??spelling) Siddhartha for an excellent example of this). On the other hand, a good father/husband has little time to become an adept. In general, I would say that it is possible to do both, but what usually happens is that one is unable to do justice to either roles. >In the general model followed by TS(Adyar) after HPB, there is a >general belief about the need to avoid meat, alcohol and if possible >sex (both within the marriage and outside). This is the general TS model, yes. But recall that a great Master once said that it is what comes out of your mouth that profains you, not what goes into it. Abstaining from sex in order to be godly is, IMHO, a stupid, albeit an understandable, mistake, and psychologically dangerous. Give up sex because you have no real desire for it and you will be OK. Give it up in order to be spiritual, and you are only fooling yourself. Look to your motive here. I think that as one becomes spiritual, one begins to realize that the opposite sex is within themself, much like Jung taught. One will naturally begin to seek wholeness within rather than without. But this should occur naturally, and not be forced. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:47:50 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <32BF0C16.72B5@worldnet.att.net> >Is there anything at all about the thesis of THE MASTERS REVEALED which >makes THE SECRET DOCTRINE less important? No. Richard, thanks for the excellent posting. I have to suspect that the real reason TS fundmentalists hate Paul's thesis so much is his idea that HPB deliberately fibbed about the Masters. If this is accepted, then perhaps she fibbed elsewhere as well, opening a Pandora's Box. Gee, then we would all have to ferret out the truths from the fibs ourselves, which is a lot harder than taking it all on faith. I once posted an essay on morality on theos-l, in which I linked occultism with Kolberg's Morality Levels. People at the highest levels tend to fib if there is sufficient justification. I suspect that HPB was at a very high moral level. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:12:56 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > ---------- > > From: M K Ramadoss > > Ann: The Internet is a unique medium and every organization used to > > control and censor what goes out to members and readers, is going to > > have > > trouble in coming to terms. So what is happening does not surprise me. > > > I guess it's a little hard to take for an organization to realize it is > losing > the control it thought it had. Sort of like when a parent realizes their > child has reached the age of 21 and basically has the freedom to act > without > their permission. Perhaps the members of these various organizations > have reached the age of maturity and are beginning to think for themselves. > > BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't > have any other details yet. > > -Ann E. Bermingham > You are right. In the early days, the Real Founders were very involved in a day to day manner and as TS grew up, They went into the background as They knew TS can stand on its own feet. Will be interesting to see the newsgroup. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:14:29 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, JRC wrote: > On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > > BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't > > have any other details yet. > > > 10 ' ll getcha 20 its moderated. > tee hee, -JRC > I will not be surprised either. But real action will be here as it has always been. Anyone needing the full Truth will continue to be here. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:35:25 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: <199612240001.TAA22914@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Jerry Schueler > > Doss, here are my responses to your excellent questions: > > >In pp. 17, The Mahatma Letters to APS (Third Edition TPH Adyar 1962) is > >the following statement. > > > > "It is true that a married man cannot be an adept, yet without > >striving to become a 'Raja Yogi' he can acquire certain powers and do > >much good to mankind and often more, by remaining within the precincts >of this world of his." > >This should be "It is harder for a married man to be an adept, ..." > As written, the quote is in error (IMHO, of course). > > >I for a moment do not doubt what is stated in the ML. Well, I certainly do. The words given in the ML are not > biblical canon, and must be taken in context with other teachings. The > very way that most were delivered (psychic precipitation) leaves > lots of room for small errors. I remember quite clearly that Ramakrishna, the Indian Saint, was married, yet achieved high states of illlumination, along with his wife. Whether they had what would be termed a traditional marriage would be another matter. They helped each other achieve each other's spiritual goals and mission, which is probably what every marriage should be like. > >How do you reconcile the fact that Buddha (who is supposed to have been > >an Adept even in his previous lives) was a married man? > >Is it possible that there are exceptions to the rule? Easy, a married man can become an adept, but usually > he will be a lousy father/husband (see Herman Hesse's (??spelling) > Siddhartha for an excellent example of this). On the other > hand, a good father/husband has little time to become an adept. > In general, I would say that it is possible to do both, but > what usually happens is that one is unable to do justice to > either roles. My experiences with astrology tells me that we each have chance to to have lives that are family-oriented and lives that may be solitary and spiritually oriented. No doubt each one is valueable for the advancement of the soul that is projecting the personalities. > >In the general model followed by TS(Adyar) after HPB, there is a > >general belief about the need to avoid meat, alcohol and if possible > >sex (both within the marriage and outside). Sounds like they were creating an ashram for sannyasins. I have seen people embrace this because it was natural to their ascetic personalities. And then there were others who were highly advanced and did none of the above. Blanket rules are only good for those who are already bent towards those ideas. Then, some people like HPB, forge their own path. This is the general TS model, yes. But recall that > a great Master once said that it is what comes out of your > mouth that profains you, not what goes into it. Abstaining > from sex in order to be godly is, IMHO, a stupid, albeit an > understandable, mistake, and psychologically dangerous. Give > up sex because you have no real desire for it and you will be > OK. Give it up in order to be spiritual, and you are only > fooling yourself. Look to your motive here. I think that > as one becomes spiritual, one begins to realize that the > opposite sex is within themself, much like Jung taught. One > will naturally begin to seek wholeness within rather than > without. But this should occur naturally, and not be forced. > My theory is that there is really no such thing as giving up sex. If you aren't involved in a personal relationship with a person and following a spiritual path, one is probably having a sense of unity with one's higher self. Rather than foccussed in the lower chakras, the energies are activated in the higher chakras. The point fo contact between the soul and the personality is in the the third eye, causing what could be termed orgasmic union. The saints, including Ramakrishna, certainly have blissful and extremely happy looks on their faces. They are rapt in union with their higher selves and then, everything around them. Peace to all the beings of the world, -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:38:06 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <199612240001.TAA22935@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC > > On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > > BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't > > have any other details yet. > > > 10 ' ll getcha 20 its moderated. > tee hee, -JRC Forgot to mention that. I'd also wondered what happened to the online lodge, that was supposed to cost $15 a year. My husband remarked that they may have scuttled that because it could have been hard to administer. Certainly, it would have been more work. Wonder who gets the job of scanning all the posts to see if they pass muster? -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:25:54 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <19961224002551.AAA10219@LOCALNAME> At 11:03 PM 12/23/96 +0000, Jerry Schueler wrote: >>Is there anything at all about the thesis of THE MASTERS REVEALED which >>makes THE SECRET DOCTRINE less important? No. >Richard, thanks for the excellent posting. I have to suspect >that the real reason TS fundmentalists hate Paul's thesis so >much is his idea that HPB deliberately fibbed about the Masters. >If this is accepted, then perhaps she fibbed elsewhere as well, >opening a Pandora's Box. I recall reading in "The Mahatma Letters," that HPB fibbed, with K. H.'s blessing, for the purpose of concealing certain truths from those who might have misused them. She admitted to using "blinds" all through her writings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:25:58 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <19961224002551.AAB10219@LOCALNAME> At 09:41 PM 12/23/96 +0000, JRC wrote: >On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: >> BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't >> have any other details yet. >10 ' ll getcha 20 its moderated. > tee hee, -JRC >From my experience with moderated newsgroups and from my experience with the TS, 10 will get you 100 that if you try to post something negative about the TS in their moderated newsgroup, they would post it. What happened with the newsgroup alt.theosophy? It was on my news server for a while, and I posted some articles to it, but I never saw any article in it, including mine. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:32:03 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > MKR: > > >In the general model followed by TS(Adyar) after HPB, there is a > > >general belief about the need to avoid meat, alcohol and if possible > > >sex (both within the marriage and outside). > > Sounds like they were creating an ashram for sannyasins. I have > seen people embrace this because it was natural to their ascetic > personalities. And then there were others who were highly advanced > and did none of the above. Blanket rules are only good for those > who are already bent towards those ideas. Then, some people like > HPB, forge their own path. In the traditional Indian Sanyasins have to irrevocably give up everything and even give up their name and have a new one so that you cutoff from everything in the past. In addition, no sanyasin can possess and or control either directly or indirectly anything of value or power. The true sanyasin is really and truly a free person in its widest term and also no traditional rules apply to one. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:36:05 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > From: JRC > > > > On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > > > > BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't > > > have any other details yet. > > > > > 10 ' ll getcha 20 its moderated. > > tee hee, -JRC > > Forgot to mention that. I'd also wondered what happened to the online > lodge, that was > supposed to cost $15 a year. My husband remarked that they may have > scuttled that > because it could have been hard to administer. Certainly, it would have > been more work. > > Wonder who gets the job of scanning all the posts to see if they pass > muster? > > -Ann E. Bermingham I have not heard anything yet. The National Lodge is, I believe still active and you need to spend I believe the additional $15 annual dues/fees. Any volunteers to scan all the posts? I think it would be a wonderful really 24 hour job -- not 9.30am to 12.30 pm and 2pm to 5.00pm (M-F) job. It would be very interesting to see who gets the job and how he/she does the job. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:43:12 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > At 11:03 PM 12/23/96 +0000, Jerry Schueler wrote: > > >>Is there anything at all about the thesis of THE MASTERS REVEALED which > >>makes THE SECRET DOCTRINE less important? No. > > >Richard, thanks for the excellent posting. I have to suspect > >that the real reason TS fundmentalists hate Paul's thesis so > >much is his idea that HPB deliberately fibbed about the Masters. > >If this is accepted, then perhaps she fibbed elsewhere as well, > >opening a Pandora's Box. > > I recall reading in "The Mahatma Letters," that HPB fibbed, with K. H.'s > blessing, for the purpose of concealing certain truths from those who might > have misused them. She admitted to using "blinds" all through her writings. > Misuse of occult information and knowledge is a very serious matter, IMHO. I myself has seen that as days go by, I understand somethings better than before. After all are we all not grown up to work hard and understand rather than being spoon fed? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:45:22 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: > > What happened with the newsgroup alt.theosophy? It was on my news server > for a while, and I posted some articles to it, but I never saw any article > in it, including mine. I believe there was distribution problems and also the time delay. Gradually there was a loss of interest. Glad we have theos-xxxx, with instant postings. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:29:21 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > > Richard, thanks for the excellent posting. I have to suspect > that the real reason TS fundmentalists hate Paul's thesis so > much is his idea that HPB deliberately fibbed about the Masters. > If this is accepted, then perhaps she fibbed elsewhere as well, > opening a Pandora's Box. Gee, then we would all have to ferret > out the truths from the fibs ourselves, which is a lot harder > than taking it all on faith. Ahhhh ... yes, but its even more than this ... the TS is not only presenting the stuff as "truth" - it is *imposing its study* - to form a study section or Lodge, I believe people are now actually required to not only study particular sorts of things, but pass some sort of test on it. It would be pretty damn touchy to go around imposing a dogma if there were actually some question about its truth. A good deal of institutional resources, as well as the foundations for the control-fetish currently ruling HQ, are grounded in the belief that the early TS source works are the equivilent of received wisdom - certainly not open to question and *most* certainly not to the sort of uncomfortable questions KPJ's book raises. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:34:52 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't > > > have any other details yet. > > > > > 10 ' ll getcha 20 its moderated. > > tee hee, -JRC > > Forgot to mention that. > Wonder who gets the job of scanning all the posts to see if they pass > muster? > -Ann E. Bermingham 20 ' ll getcha 50 they won't be askin' me ... tee hee hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:52:32 -0500 (EST) From: Olcott Library Subject: Re: Happy Holidays! Message-ID: Olcott Library is signing off THEOS-xxx for the next 2 weeks (until January 6). However, the library will be open to users in person and by phone, except for December 24 & 25, January 1, and Sundays. Season's greetings and a Happy New Year to all! Elisabeth Trumpler Head Librarian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:07:31 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > > >From my experience with moderated newsgroups and from my experience with the > TS, 10 will get you 100 that if you try to post something negative about the > TS in their moderated newsgroup, they would post it. Well, that certainly would be welcome - but I doubt it. From my experience with the AT, Quest, and the TPH, exerting control over the parameters and content of discussion is close to an obsession. Of course, to those who wish of their own accord to remain within the approved boundaries, no limitation appears to exist - but those who have tried to genuinely stretch the boundaries have almost to the person come to understand how well defined and *enforced* they are. I don't think you were here last year when the By-law "revisions" were being put to a "vote" in the Wheaton TS. Most of the Society simply read the AT - and the presentation in *that* would have made it appear as though there was only mild concern about the changes, and that they really were only to "clean up" things ... that is, that they were merely minor housekeeping changes. On this list however (which contains members from all the different Societies ... Adyar/Wheaton, Point Loma & etc., and a range of opinion from the most conservative to the most radical) there was a *huge* debate ... and in the view of at least some, at least a couple of the changes were far more than simply housekeeping, but were a significant step in the further consolidation of power by a faction that now runs HQ. The "debate" that was permitted in the AT was little other than a token discourse ... were the same debate that took place here been permitted in the AT, or would a considerably larger number of members been on this list, the Bylaw revisions may well have gone down in flames, and even if they passed, it would have been a *helluva* lot closer. In fact, they even *broke* the Bylaws governing the process by which changes to the Bylaws must be made - a fact brought clearly to light (by several different listmembers who are attorneys) on this list ... but certainly not something publicised in the AT ... and - I'd be willing to bet - not something that would be permitted to be a thread on a moderated newsgroup. Point is, the people who designed and wanted the changes - and who *benefitted* from them, are the same people that controlled what did and did not go into the AT ... and the people who will now be moderating the newsgroup. If they do not permit free and open discussion in the organs of communication they do control, I certainly would not expect them to suddenly change their ways in the formation of a new avenue. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:48:33 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: > > Richard Ihle writes--> > As one reads Dr. John Algeo, one needs to keep constantly in mind the > possibility that if Johnson is right to any extent at all, it might make > Algeo seem more like the president of a philosophy club rather than the > bishop he may prefer to see himself as. Richard - yes, I think so ... in fact wrote the same thing to KPJ the other day. There is a lot at stake here psychologically - but in terms of the organization as well. The current leadership - "Ph.D's" notwithstanding - have actually (IMO) made the TS into little other than a philosophy club ... and not even a very interesting one at that. And philosophy clubs are scattered all over the world - but generally don't have a large organization, and generally their presidents aren't paid salaries. The *foundation* for whatever power the institutional leaders have lies not in the fact that the TS is in any way actually serving the current world - but in the implied connection to "the Masters" that membership in the TS is believed to give. There is a huge vested interest in *keeping* the Masters mysterious ... because the leadership has *not* made the TS into something that is in active service to today's world. > > In my opinion, the reason THE MASTERS REVEALED is the most important > theosophical book to come out in many decades is not for what it proves or > disproves; rather, it is for delivering the diamond-cutter's blow perfectly: > either the Theosophical Society of the future will rest upon the > foundation of indefectable doctrine brought via ~very~ preternatural Masters, > or all theosophical teachings, including HPB's, must stand or fall on their > own merit. Yes ... I found it *very* interesting that the TPH did not publish the book - certainly it was not editorial reasons ... it more than surpassed the level of a lot of stuff they publish - and apparently met the standards of a number of noted critics *outside* TS circles ... it could not have been its commercial viability - as it was picked up by a commercial house, and is selling as well or better than (again) a lot of stuff coming out of the TPH (a lot of the TS "chosen ones" who get contracts with the TPH probably could not find an outside publisher) ... and it certainly could not have been because the book - whether one agreed with its premises or not - was not a valid contribution to the body of theosophical literature ...... the only thing I can conclude is that, once again (as with the case of the Quest and the AT) - it contained the sin of unapproved content. It is not exactly a shock that John Algeo, who was instrumental in (if not chiefly responsible for) the editorial decision to turn down the manuscript, would then, after KPJ not only found another avenue to get it into print *despite* the efforts of Wheaton but actually saw it selling well to non-Theosophists and reviewed positively, it is not a shock that Algeo would critisize the thing. The TS leadership apparently didn't even want it sold within theosophical circles - much writing about Theosophy is obscure and arcane, and of interest to a very few ... and normally a manuscript dealing with detailed arguments about who the TS Masters were would be effectively squashed if it was not published by the THP or some other TS press. This is, I think, important to understand ... in rejecting the manuscript, Headquarters would have had every reason to believe that the book would either receive the minimal distribution that self-publishing provides, or would not see the light of day at all. Apparently they did not even want the discussion to take place. But then! Horror of horrors, it not only gets published, but gets published with a good house with a considerable distribution network, all sorts of people outside the TS begin to buy it, and it winds up reviewed in major forums. That mere fact that it was reviewed by (for instance) the NYT Book Review - let alone *positively* reviewed, is itself a glaring criticism of the editorial judgement of John Algeo and the editorial board of the TPH. Once all that happened, however, of *course* Algeo had to review it ... the TS could not simply ignore what the larger world was recognizing ... and *of course* he had to slam it - he could hardly give a *positive* review (in his role of learned intellectual critic) of a book that came from a manuscript he rejected (in his role of THP editor) - especially when the book may well sell better than anything else that came out of the TPH this year. The entire situation is, IMO, a standing invitation for TS members concerned with the future of the TS to reflect upon what happens when a large majority of institutional power becomes concentrated into the hands of a very tiny group of people - a group that, by the by, has been slowly but surely raising increasingly large institutional barriers to entrance. "The Masters Revealed" is a very interesting title. KPJ may not have revealed the Masters themselves ... but he certainly caused the motives of those who currently control the organization they started to be revealed. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 20:54:07 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <199612240354.UAA00141@snowden.micron.net> Jerry wrote: >If this is accepted, then perhaps she fibbed elsewhere as well, >opening a Pandora's Box. Gee, then we would all have to ferret >out the truths from the fibs ourselves, which is a lot harder >than taking it all on faith. I believe that "the kingdom of God is within us" and no one, not a Master or a Jesus or a HPB is going to reveal to us something we don't really already know. Unsettling as it is, HPB's perpetuation of the myth of the 'Masters' tends to reinforce the idea that what we need to know will come, not from the inside, but from the outside. One the other hand, it is a weird quirk of humanity that we need mystery and intrigue in order for us to get up and get real about something. If HPB had told us that the Masters really were plain old humans (and, god forbid, rich ones at that) would humanity have listened to her? Do we really want to know the identity of our sacred Truth-sayers? Would Theosophy exist if HPB hadn't of lied? - which I believe she did. In seeking the identity of the Masters, we begin on a path that will lead us not to the Masters (who in reality are inconsequential), but to a greater Truth. Our means to the end will be just as important as the end. >People at the highest levels tend to fib if there is >sufficient justification. As one who is still on the "lowest level" I can assure you I, too, fib when there is sufficient justification. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:57:55 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <32BF54C3.53C2@eden.com> JRC wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > > Richard, thanks for the excellent posting. I have to suspect > > that the real reason TS fundmentalists hate Paul's thesis so > > much is his idea that HPB deliberately fibbed about the Masters. > > If this is accepted, then perhaps she fibbed elsewhere as well, > > opening a Pandora's Box. Gee, then we would all have to ferret > > out the truths from the fibs ourselves, which is a lot harder > > than taking it all on faith. > Ahhhh ... yes, but its even more than this ... the TS is not only > presenting the stuff as "truth" - it is *imposing its study* - to form a > study section or Lodge, I believe people are now actually required to not > only study particular sorts of things, but pass some sort of test on it. > It would be pretty damn touchy to go around imposing a dogma if there were > actually some question about its truth. A good deal of institutional > resources, as well as the foundations for the control-fetish currently > ruling HQ, are grounded in the belief that the early TS source works are > the equivilent of received wisdom - certainly not open to question and > *most* certainly not to the sort of uncomfortable questions KPJ's book > raises. > -JRC The study centers and lodges are put on *probation* and are watched to see if their activities conform to *Theosophy* as interpreted by whoever sits in judgment over what Theosophy is or is not. Once the probationary period is over, only then the lodges/study centers are given a permanent status. This is my understanding. If there is someone who is more knowledgeable, please post a msg here. Don't send me a private e-mail. (Some time ago when I posted a msg here, there was someone who sent a private message and I wanted to get permission to post it here since the message I received was private, but was not acceeded to.) I like open discussion and if I am wrong, I will be the first one to admit it. What a change over a period of a century. When Olcott visited a city in India where I used to live, during his visit he chartered not one but two lodges in one single day in two parts of the city. These lodges were not in any way or form put under *probation* neither by Olcott nor by HPB, nor my the Real Founders. I wonder if the present policy was adopted by Olcott when he went on establishing lodges around the world over a hundred years ago, how many countries would have lodges today. All these things coupled with the way in which the bylaws of TSA were changed, makes one wonder. (Any one new to theos-l and wanting to know all about TSA bylaws change and the tactics used by those in administration, can retrieve the numerous messages posted on theos-l at the time the bylaw changes were made. You will not get the True Story by listening to anyone who is on the party *line*) At the time Olcott tried to expand TS activities he did not have all the multi-million dollar resources and I think that money when gets mixed up with organization and Theosophy, yields a dangerous concoction, both to Theosophy and TS. These are just my humble opinion. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:06:14 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <32BF56B6.45@eden.com> JRC wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > > > > >From my experience with moderated newsgroups and from my experience with the > > TS, 10 will get you 100 that if you try to post something negative about the > > TS in their moderated newsgroup, they would post it. > Well, that certainly would be welcome - but I doubt it. From my > experience with the AT, Quest, and the TPH, exerting control over the > parameters and content of discussion is close to an obsession. Of course, > to those who wish of their own accord to remain within the approved > boundaries, no limitation appears to exist - but those who have tried to > genuinely stretch the boundaries have almost to the person come to > understand how well defined and *enforced* they are. > I don't think you were here last year when the By-law "revisions" > were being put to a "vote" in the Wheaton TS. Most of the Society simply > read the AT - and the presentation in *that* would have made it appear as > though there was only mild concern about the changes, and that they really > were only to "clean up" things ... that is, that they were merely minor > housekeeping changes. On this list however (which contains members from > all the different Societies ... Adyar/Wheaton, Point Loma & etc., and a > range of opinion from the most conservative to the most radical) there was > a *huge* debate ... and in the view of at least some, at least a couple of > the changes were far more than simply housekeeping, but were a significant > step in the further consolidation of power by a faction that now runs HQ. > The "debate" that was permitted in the AT was little other than a > token discourse ... were the same debate that took place here been > permitted in the AT, or would a considerably larger number of members been > on this list, the Bylaw revisions may well have gone down in flames, and > even if they passed, it would have been a *helluva* lot closer. In fact, > they even *broke* the Bylaws governing the process by which changes to the > Bylaws must be made - a fact brought clearly to light (by several > different listmembers who are attorneys) on this list ... but certainly > not something publicised in the AT ... and - I'd be willing to bet - not > something that would be permitted to be a thread on a moderated newsgroup. > Point is, the people who designed and wanted the changes - and who > *benefitted* from them, are the same people that controlled what did and > did not go into the AT ... and the people who will now be moderating the > newsgroup. If they do not permit free and open discussion in the organs > of communication they do control, I certainly would not expect them to > suddenly change their ways in the formation of a new avenue. > -JRC It is my understanding that Krishnamurti Foundation of America set up an officially sponsored/approved maillist which fell on its face fast. It was succeeded by a maillist from Berlin, West Germany set up by an interested individual with no official or financial support from KFA. It is thriving. I guess, the problem with TSA is that there is a core of individuals who have a blind belief in certain dogma and creed. The Adept who warned AB in His 1900 letter about this is really foresighted. It is said that sometimes even Gods cannot help undo the foolish actions of men and women. This is my 2 cents worth of opinions. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:13:57 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <32BF5885.389E@sprynet.com> JRC wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > > > BTW, I learned recently that TSA is going to put up a newsgroup. Don't > > have any other details yet. > > > 10 ' ll getcha 20 its moderated. Is that an offer? Before you say yes, note that Ruben Cabigting is the one who would be setting it up. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:30:06 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <32BF5C4E.14B3@eden.com> JRC wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 RIhle@aol.com wrote: Richard - yes, I think so ... in fact wrote the same thing to KPJ > the other day. There is a lot at stake here psychologically - but in terms > of the organization as well. The current leadership - "Ph.D's" > notwithstanding - have actually (IMO) made the TS into little other than a > philosophy club ... and not even a very interesting one at that. And > philosophy clubs are scattered all over the world - but generally don't > have a large organization, and generally their presidents aren't paid > salaries. The *foundation* for whatever power the institutional leaders > have lies not in the fact that the TS is in any way actually serving the > current world - but in the implied connection to "the Masters" that > membership in the TS is believed to give. There is a huge vested interest > in *keeping* the Masters mysterious ... because the leadership has *not* > made the TS into something that is in active service to today's world. > I am glad that you brought this up. A few days ago, I was reading the letter, which every TS President has stated as the charter of the Society. This was a summary of a conversation that KH had with Maha Chohan. I quote a section of it: "And it is we, the humble disciples of these perfect Lamas, who are expected to allow the TS to drop its noble title, that of Brotherhood of Humanity, to become a simple school of psychology. No, no, good brothers, you have been laboring under the mistake too long already." Is it possible that slowly and surely the whole focus may have gravitated to "become a simple school of psychology"? In my many years of membership in TS both in India and the USA, I have attended numerous meetings that dealt with all the mental gymnastics needed to understand Anthropogenesis and Cosmogenesis and all the descriptions of planes of nature, life after death and all the things repeated like a parrot. I have rarely seen discussions dealing with doing something that is in active service to the world. I would still be happily trudging along with this path, but for the wake up call from reading and listening to Krishnamurti, who made me think for myself and reassess myself and my relationship with the world at large and ask some fundamental questions about how I can help everyone I come into contact. My hope is that one of these days, in the current manvantara, I may have the opportunity to meet with Solar Logos and understand everything about Anthropogenesis and Cosmogenesis first hand!!! This is my 2 cents worth. Your mileage and direction may vary. I am going to stay on the course!!! MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:44:29 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > know. Unsettling as it is, HPB's perpetuation of the myth of the 'Masters' > tends to reinforce the idea that what we need to know will come, not from > the inside, but from the outside. I do recall that HPB has clearly mentioned somewhere that we have to work and whatever Truth there is, is something we have to discover ourselves. I wonder if any one is gullible enought to expect we would be spoonfed with Truth. Until and unless we growup, I don't think we can expect to know or understand Real Truth. HPB was a remarkable and very practical person. She is the last person to have expected anything that easy - given from outside. As for her practicality, there was this incident. Once AB asked HPB how to concentrate. AB's expectation was that she will be told to concentrate on the picture of one of the Adepts. Guess what was HPB's answer. She threw a matchbox onthe table and asked AB to concentrate on it. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:05:22 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <961224000521_2086693779@emout12.mail.aol.com> >From what I hear, the newsgroup will be moderated. I wonder by who. :) Anyway, I wish them luck with it. They'll need it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:05:24 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: <961224000524_404605588@emout14.mail.aol.com> Well, let me see, I eat meat, and probably will get around to getting married one of these days, so I guess that disqualifies me for adeptship. But since I'm already a god, I suppose I'll just have to live without it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:05:27 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: <961224000526_777604143@emout17.mail.aol.com> There is another possibility. The rules are wrong. Now why doesn't that surprise me? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:05:30 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <961224000529_1008585108@emout01.mail.aol.com> Well, let's see, Who at Olcott is trusted to look at the internet? Does the name John ring a bell? I wonder if it's a conspiracy to work him to death. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Dec 24 00:58:49 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <199612240558.AAA10869@envirolink.org> m.k. ramadoss writes: > HPB was a remarkable and very practical person. She is the last person >to have expected anything that easy - given from outside. As for her >practicality, there was this incident. Once AB asked HPB how to >concentrate. AB's expectation was that she will be told to concentrate on >the picture of one of the Adepts. Guess what was HPB's answer. She threw >a matchbox onthe table and asked AB to concentrate on it. > >MKR This reminds me of a really funny joke by Steven Wright. It goes something like this: "A few years ago I was reading some books on telekinesis and I decided to try it at home. I got in a comfortable position on my couch, and commenced concentrating on my throw rug. I sat there for three days. The rug didn't move an inch. When I looked up, my house was gone." Other than the above, I can't really think of anything intelligent to say on the subject. I'm far too tired. G'night. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:21:05 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <19961224062054.AAA26786@LOCALNAME> At 03:13 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC wrote: >On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: >> >From my experience with moderated newsgroups and from my experience with the >> TS, 10 will get you 100 that if you try to post something negative about the >> TS in their moderated newsgroup, they would post it. > Well, that certainly would be welcome - but I doubt it. From my >experience with the AT, Quest, and the TPH, exerting control over the >parameters and content of discussion is close to an obsession. I find it significant that I have heard all these accusations of "obsessive control" on the part of the "Wheaton oligarchy," and yet I have neither seen mention of any details or substance of which ideas they suppress, nor of what might motivate them to be so oppressive. I suggested that they probably would not publish "Mein Kampf," which was agreed with, but, so far, where, short of publishing everything that everyone else wants them to publish, they should be, has not been voiced. >Of course, >to those who wish of their own accord to remain within the approved >boundaries, no limitation appears to exist - but those who have tried to >genuinely stretch the boundaries have almost to the person come to >understand how well defined and *enforced* they are. On what do you base your implication that what boundaries that exist should be stretched and not further restricted? > Point is, the people who designed and wanted the changes - and who >*benefitted* from them, are the same people that controlled what did and >did not go into the AT What do you mean by "benefit?" Did they steal a lot of money? Did they gain political power? Will the Masters grant them special spiritual favors? What? The idea that the only legitimate claim these accusers have is that they disagree with the TS, while never showing anything wrong with the idea that someone has to decide what the Theosophical Society stands for and what it stands against, especially in addition to the closed-mindedness that I have seen on this list from those who believe the TS should be more open-minded, leads me to give much more credence to the idea that it is personal sour grapes that motivates these accusers. They should either put up or shut up, at least until they say what they think are the evil motives of the "corrupt" powers. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:21:15 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Thesis vs. Hypotheses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <19961224062054.AAB26786@LOCALNAME> At 03:52 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC wrote: > "The Masters Revealed" is a very interesting title. KPJ may not >have revealed the Masters themselves ... but he certainly caused the >motives of those who currently control the organization they started to be >revealed. What if someone had written a book saying that K. H. and M. were alcoholics and wife-beaters, and the New York Times favorably reviewed it? Would you consider it evidence of evil, power-hungry motives if the TPH had not published it? If you are saying that you disagree with where the TS draws the line, why not say where you would draw the line? If you are saying there should be no line, what would you mean by the word "Theosophy," if it neither stands for nor against anything? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:21:28 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <19961224062054.AAC26786@LOCALNAME> At 04:03 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > The study centers and lodges are put on *probation* and are watched >to see if their activities conform to *Theosophy* as interpreted by >whoever sits in judgment over what Theosophy is or is not. Once the >probationary period is over, only then the lodges/study centers are >given a permanent status. Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." > What a change over a period of a century. When Olcott visited a city >in India where I used to live, during his visit he chartered not one but >two lodges in one single day in two parts of the city. These lodges were >not in any way or form put under *probation* neither by Olcott nor by >HPB, nor my the Real Founders. You seem to be implying that having no control over lodges is optimal. But there would be no reason for the founders to found lodges if they did not care what those lodges would study. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:21:40 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <19961224062054.AAD26786@LOCALNAME> At 04:10 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > I guess, the problem with TSA is that there is a core of individuals >who have a blind belief in certain dogma and creed. Although "blind belief" certainly contradicts the intention of the founders of the TS, if Theosophy has neither dogma nor creed, it is a meaningless term. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:13:18 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > At 04:10 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > > > I guess, the problem with TSA is that there is a core of individuals > >who have a blind belief in certain dogma and creed. > > Although "blind belief" certainly contradicts the intention of the founders > of the TS, if Theosophy has neither dogma nor creed, it is a meaningless term. > If it has *either* it is a meaningless term. Read the First Object. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 07:19:18 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <19961224071907.AAA11155@LOCALNAME> At 07:14 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC wrote: >On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: >> At 04:10 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: >> > I guess, the problem with TSA is that there is a core of individuals >> >who have a blind belief in certain dogma and creed. >> Although "blind belief" certainly contradicts the intention of the founders >> of the TS, if Theosophy has neither dogma nor creed, it is a meaningless term. >If it has *either* it is a meaningless term. Read the First Object. Then what _does_ the term mean, if it cannot be defined? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:45:06 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > > The study centers and lodges are put on *probation* and are watched > >to see if their activities conform to *Theosophy* as interpreted by > >whoever sits in judgment over what Theosophy is or is not. Once the > >probationary period is over, only then the lodges/study centers are > >given a permanent status. > > Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." They most assuredly do *not*. The Three Objects "define" the purpose of theosophical organizations. Neither HPB, nor Olcott, nor the Masters in the Mahatma Letters *ever* even suggested, let alone insisted upon, any of that controlling garbage. > > > What a change over a period of a century. When Olcott visited a city > >in India where I used to live, during his visit he chartered not one but > >two lodges in one single day in two parts of the city. These lodges were > >not in any way or form put under *probation* neither by Olcott nor by > >HPB, nor my the Real Founders. > > You seem to be implying that having no control over lodges is optimal. But > there would be no reason for the founders to found lodges if they did not > care what those lodges would study. Perhaps what he is saying (as I would say) that the *Lodges* have control over what the Lodges study. There is an *enormous* range of opinion and belief about what constitues Theosophy - as there was *designed* to be. It was meant to be something broad enough to encompass all races, religions, creeds and castes ... Headquarters has absolutely *no* moral or intellectual foundation to take one of a multitude of perspectives and make recognition of a Lodge or Study Center *conditional* upon the practice of its (IMO very narrow) definition. Apparently HPB, Olcott, and the Masters believed the Lodges themselves could actually govern themselves, and choose the content and methods of their study and work. The Lodges HPB, Olcott and the other early ones began studied an enormous variety of different things - curious ... I'll bet the first Lodge HPB and Olcott started ... if one examined its proceedings ... *would not pass the tests Headquarters now sees fit to impose*. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:07:42 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: > > Well, let me see, I eat meat, and probably will get around to getting married > one of these days, so I guess that disqualifies me for adeptship. But since > I'm already a god, I suppose I'll just have to live without it. > > Chuck the Heretic > If you are a god, how can you be a heretic? Inquiring Churchmice want to know -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:31:09 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <19961224083106.AAA11094@LOCALNAME> At 07:48 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC wrote: >On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: >> Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." > They most assuredly do *not*. The Three Objects "define" the >purpose of theosophical organizations. Neither HPB, nor Olcott, nor the >Masters in the Mahatma Letters *ever* even suggested, let alone insisted >upon, any of that controlling garbage. If the belief that Jesus died on the cross to save from their sins those who believe that he died on the cross to save them from their sins is just as Theosophical as to believe in the one divine, homogeneous substance-principle, which HPB referred to as a "fundamental dogma," then the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. >There is an *enormous* range of opinion and >belief about what constitues Theosophy - as there was *designed* to be. If you are saying that John Algeo's opinion of what constitutes Theosophy is too limited, what limit would you say, without being dogmatic yourself, it should have? If you believe there should be no limit, you are saying that the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. >It was meant to be something broad enough to encompass all races, religions, >creeds and castes What about the creed that men should dominate over women? What about the creed that, since Jews threaten the existence of the master Aryan race, they should all be annihilated? Do you consider those creeds just as Theosophical as the laws of karma and of cyclicity? If you would never draw a line, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. You would also face strong disagreement with most participants on this list, since one of the aforementioned creeds was categorically condemned as being untheosophical, and I assume the pro-Nazi one would be, too. There is no way to be completely open-minded without throwing out all ideas and being a blank slate. The search for truth includes standing for what truth has been found. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Dec 24 07:55:43 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <199612241255.HAA26431@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >At 04:03 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > >> The study centers and lodges are put on *probation* and are watched >>to see if their activities conform to *Theosophy* as interpreted by >>whoever sits in judgment over what Theosophy is or is not. Once the >>probationary period is over, only then the lodges/study centers are >>given a permanent status. > >Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." > > >> What a change over a period of a century. When Olcott visited a city >>in India where I used to live, during his visit he chartered not one but >>two lodges in one single day in two parts of the city. These lodges were >>not in any way or form put under *probation* neither by Olcott nor by >>HPB, nor my the Real Founders. > >You seem to be implying that having no control over lodges is optimal. But >there would be no reason for the founders to found lodges if they did not >care what those lodges would study. > Not having any "lodge" experience, I have to ask: Do the founders of these lodges put a probation period on their OWN lodge? That doesn't seem very intelligent to me. I must deduce that they don't for now. If that is the case, then it seems that the implications you recieved were misconceived. From mkr's particular words, I think he was arguing against the fact that, in the past, there was no elite group who decided who could and who couldn't found a lodge and what you could or could not teach within it. I'll stop here, for I have absolutely NO idea about what a lodge is supposed to accomplish. I always thought that it was simply a place which provided resources and companions for developing Theosophists. The more that I read about them, however, the more they seem to be churches. My $.02. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Dec 24 08:16:29 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <199612241316.IAA27220@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >>> Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." JRC: >> They most assuredly do *not*. The Three Objects "define" the >>purpose of theosophical organizations. Neither HPB, nor Olcott, nor the >>Masters in the Mahatma Letters *ever* even suggested, let alone insisted >>upon, any of that controlling garbage. Tom: >If the belief that Jesus died on the cross to save from their sins those who >believe that he died on the cross to save them from their sins is just as >Theosophical as to believe in the one divine, homogeneous >substance-principle, which HPB referred to as a "fundamental dogma," then >the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. Not really. The difference between Theosophy and and Christianity is that Christians are reluctant to change. They try desperately not to investigate their beliefs, and prefer to act on faith. I don't think HPB wanted future Theosophists to believe in the principle as an act of faith. I think she simply wanted developing Theosophists to add it into the equation. > >>There is an *enormous* range of opinion and >>belief about what constitues Theosophy - as there was *designed* to be. > >If you are saying that John Algeo's opinion of what constitutes Theosophy is >too limited, what limit would you say, without being dogmatic yourself, it >should have? If you believe there should be no limit, you are saying that >the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. > >>It was meant to be something broad enough to encompass all races, religions, >>creeds and castes > >What about the creed that men should dominate over women? What about the >creed that, since Jews threaten the existence of the master Aryan race, they >should all be annihilated? Do you consider those creeds just as >Theosophical as the laws of karma and of cyclicity? If you would never draw >a line, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. You would also face strong >disagreement with most participants on this list, since one of the >aforementioned creeds was categorically condemned as being untheosophical, >and I assume the pro-Nazi one would be, too. There is no way to be >completely open-minded without throwing out all ideas and being a blank >slate. The search for truth includes standing for what truth has been >found. I see that JRC has limited himself by his statement. So all creeds are not acceptable. However, both of your examples above would go directly against the "tenet" that Theosophists' prime concern should be to help all humanity as defined in the Three Objects, as JRC stated. Do you have any examples of limitation which need to be imposed which are not "excluded" by the T.O.? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Dec 24 08:23:58 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: <199612241323.IAA27537@envirolink.org> CDGertrude writes: >> >> Well, let me see, I eat meat, and probably will get around to getting >>married one of these days, so I guess that disqualifies me for adeptship. >>But since I'm already a god, I suppose I'll just have to live without it. >> >> Chuck the Heretic > >If you are a god, how can you be a heretic? >Inquiring Churchmice want to know >-- 'cuz he's a god. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:25:23 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961224142523.00685028@mail.eden.com> At 01:25 AM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 04:03 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > >Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." > If you look at the three objects of TS, Theosophy - Theo-sophia has never been officially defined. If it was that easy to *define*, I am sure HPB would have simply and clearly defined it and written it into the three objects. Perhaps, The first object would have read that TS is a society for those who believe in Theosophy as defined in such and such a book. We would have a TS Bible or Koran or some TS Holy Book. The problem it appears to me is that each T/theosophist can define T/t as to what it is based on ones understanding. We have to go back to the origins of the TS. When AP Sinnett had difficulty in understanding the one key objective of the Real Founders was very simple - "The Chiefs want a "Brotherhood of Humanity", a real Universal Fraternity started". Good luck to anyone or any group of individuals who want to *define* Theosophy. > >> What a change over a period of a century. When Olcott visited a city >>in India where I used to live, during his visit he chartered not one but >>two lodges in one single day in two parts of the city. These lodges were >>not in any way or form put under *probation* neither by Olcott nor by >>HPB, nor my the Real Founders. > >You seem to be implying that having no control over lodges is optimal. But >there would be no reason for the founders to found lodges if they did not >care what those lodges would study. The spread and growth of the TS over the last century was due to the total autonomy of the Lodges. The only time that the President was empowered to act is when any lodge is involved in actions *against* the first object. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:30:21 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961224143021.006aafb0@mail.eden.com> At 02:21 AM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 07:14 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC wrote: > >>On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > >>> At 04:10 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > >>> > I guess, the problem with TSA is that there is a core of individuals >>> >who have a blind belief in certain dogma and creed. > >>> Although "blind belief" certainly contradicts the intention of the founders >>> of the TS, if Theosophy has neither dogma nor creed, it is a meaningless >term. > >>If it has *either* it is a meaningless term. Read the First Object. > >Then what _does_ the term mean, if it cannot be defined? > > It is a good question. Even HPB and her Teachers, in their wisdom never tried to officially define the term. Good luck to anyone who thinks he/she can come up with a definition. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:42:46 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961224144246.006b1a0c@mail.eden.com> At 03:34 AM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >At 07:48 AM 12/24/96 +0000, JRC wrote: > >>On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > >>> Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." > >> They most assuredly do *not*. The Three Objects "define" the >>purpose of theosophical organizations. Neither HPB, nor Olcott, nor the >>Masters in the Mahatma Letters *ever* even suggested, let alone insisted >>upon, any of that controlling garbage. > >If the belief that Jesus died on the cross to save from their sins those who >believe that he died on the cross to save them from their sins is just as >Theosophical as to believe in the one divine, homogeneous >substance-principle, which HPB referred to as a "fundamental dogma," then >the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. > > >>There is an *enormous* range of opinion and >>belief about what constitues Theosophy - as there was *designed* to be. > >If you are saying that John Algeo's opinion of what constitutes Theosophy is >too limited, what limit would you say, without being dogmatic yourself, it >should have? If you believe there should be no limit, you are saying that >the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. > > Every member, has a right to have his/her own opinion of what constitutes Theosophy so long as it does not conflict with the first object, IMHO. >>It was meant to be something broad enough to encompass all races, religions, >>creeds and castes > >What about the creed that men should dominate over women? What about the >creed that, since Jews threaten the existence of the master Aryan race, they >should all be annihilated? Do you consider those creeds just as >Theosophical as the laws of karma and of cyclicity? If you would never draw >a line, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. You would also face strong >disagreement with most participants on this list, since one of the >aforementioned creeds was categorically condemned as being untheosophical, >and I assume the pro-Nazi one would be, too. There is no way to be >completely open-minded without throwing out all ideas and being a blank >slate. The search for truth includes standing for what truth has been >found. The only uniting and fundamental basis for TS is, IMHO, the first object. Any opinion or idea or action that is in conflict with the first object cannot be Theosophy. While it is not easy to *define* Theosophy, it is very easy to see what is not. The driving force behind the TS is, I think, very clearly explained in the following statement which seem to explain what practical Theosophy is: "To all, whether Chohan or chela, who are obligated workers among us the first and last consideration is whether we can do good to our neighbor, no matter how humble he may be; and we do not permit ourselves even to think of the danger of any contumely, abuse or injustice visited upon ourselves. We are ready to be "spat upon and crucified" daily -- not once -- if real good can come to another can come of it." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:52:14 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961224145214.006b37e0@mail.eden.com> At 08:00 AM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>At 04:03 AM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >>> The study centers and lodges are put on *probation* and are watched >>>to see if their activities conform to *Theosophy* as interpreted by >>>whoever sits in judgment over what Theosophy is or is not. Once the >>>probationary period is over, only then the lodges/study centers are >>>given a permanent status. >> >>Someone, or some group of people, has to define "Theosophy." >> >> >>> What a change over a period of a century. When Olcott visited a city >>>in India where I used to live, during his visit he chartered not one but >>>two lodges in one single day in two parts of the city. These lodges were >>>not in any way or form put under *probation* neither by Olcott nor by >>>HPB, nor my the Real Founders. >> >>You seem to be implying that having no control over lodges is optimal. But >>there would be no reason for the founders to found lodges if they did not >>care what those lodges would study. >> > >Not having any "lodge" experience, I have to ask: Do the founders of these >lodges put a probation period on their OWN lodge? That doesn't seem very >intelligent to me. I must deduce that they don't for now. > >If that is the case, then it seems that the implications you recieved were >misconceived. From mkr's particular words, I think he was arguing against the >fact that, in the past, there was no elite group who decided who could and who >couldn't found a lodge and what you could or could not teach within it. I'll >stop here, for I have absolutely NO idea about what a lodge is supposed to >accomplish. I always thought that it was simply a place which provided >resources and companions for developing Theosophists. The more that I read >about them, however, the more they seem to be churches. >My $.02. >--- >The Triaist All throught the history of TS world-wide, Lodges were allowed to carry on any activity that the members wanted to further the Three Objects. Since the range of things that can be done by the lodges are so wide, such freedom provided opportunity for members to be very creative. This trend to become like churches, is a very serious one, IMHO. It looks like it is time to re-post the famous 1900 letter to Annie Besant in which one of the Real Founders warned her about. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:56:35 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961224145635.006b8b64@mail.eden.com> At 08:31 AM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote: >CDGertrude writes: >>> >>> Well, let me see, I eat meat, and probably will get around to getting >>>married one of these days, so I guess that disqualifies me for adeptship. >>>But since I'm already a god, I suppose I'll just have to live without it. >>> >>> Chuck the Heretic >> >>If you are a god, how can you be a heretic? >>Inquiring Churchmice want to know >>-- >'cuz he's a god. >--- >The Triaist No rules apply to god. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:30:12 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, John Straughn wrote: > > Not having any "lodge" experience, I have to ask: Do the founders of these > lodges put a probation period on their OWN lodge? That doesn't seem very > intelligent to me. I must deduce that they don't for now. No, they don't - *Headquarters in Wheaton* imposes the probation - and no ... that doesn't seem very intelligent, or justified. > If that is the case, then it seems that the implications you recieved were > misconceived. From mkr's particular words, I think he was arguing against the > fact that, in the past, there was no elite group who decided who could and who > couldn't found a lodge and what you could or could not teach within it. I'll > stop here, for I have absolutely NO idea about what a lodge is supposed to > accomplish. I always thought that it was simply a place which provided > resources and companions for developing Theosophists. The more that I read > about them, however, the more they seem to be churches. Actually, a lot of them are just what you say - a place with resources and companions - on the whole there is considerable diversity in TS Lodges - and it tended to attract somewhat independent, eclectic people. It is the Archbishop and Bishops at Headquarters that increasingly seem to believe they need churches ... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:48:10 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections including Zetetic Skepticism Message-ID: <199612242048.NAA23830@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections including Zetetic Skepticism Jerry Schueler writes: >Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:09:15 -0500 >From: Jerry Schueler >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses >Paul, as I read your book, I too thought that your thesis >was that HPB used a combination of fact and fiction, rather >than your revealing any exact personalities. You left >this in terms of probabilities rather than definites. I agree >with you. BTW, what is your feeling on the identities given >to us by Alexis? I do not recall Dan ever rebutting Alexis' >identities of M and KH. I presume that he would be >opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities. Dan, >did you ever write a rebuttal of Alexis' revelations? Jerry, I would be most happy to write on Alexis' identities of the Masters M and KH. BUT he never provided me with enough information other than to say that Master M was really the Maharaja of Benares and KH was really Ranbir Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir. He did provide one other detail that he believed KH appearing at Lahore in Nov. 1883 was really Ranbir Singh. Compare this with what KP Johnson says: KH appearing at Lahore was really Thakar Singh. I would assume that most of us would agree that at least one of these hypothesis on KH is flat wrong! Alexis never provided his reasoning, his evidence or his sources for these bare statements. When I asked him for such, he simply became negative with me and threw insults my way. If you, Jerry, can get him to provide us with more details, evidence, reasoning, etc., I will undertake a historical analysis of his hypotheses. My analysis may turn out to be a rebuttal of his hypotheses. Maybe not. I am somewhat intrigued with his hypothesis that Morya was really the Maharaja of Benares. Jerry writes: >I presume that he [Dan?] would be >opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities... I am assuming that you mean that I would be opposed to any attempt by Johnson or anyone else to identify the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi with any "human personalities". If this is what you mean, then I will definitely say you are wrong in your presumption. From my study of the original source documents of HPB's time, I am inclined to believe that Morya and Koot Hoomi were physical human beings with human personalities and therefore, they had names and addresses, etc. In theory, I see no reason why one could not identify who Morya and Koot Hoomi were. It's a matter of looking at the evidence and seeing if one can make a positive identification or not. I simply believe in light of what I present in my HOUSE OF CARDS that Johnson is barking up the WRONG tree. JRC in a recent post says that one Theosophical organization wants to keep the Masters mysterious. Well, this may be true. I don't know if such a broad generalization is true but I do know that a number of students of Blavatsky have told me that one should not delve into the personalities of the Masters and that to do so would be like snooping. But I try to approach the subject like a historican. What is the evidence? In what direction does the preponderance of evidence lead us in our conclusions? A number of attempts have been undertaken before Johnson's books were written to name the Masters. Mary K. Neff in the 1940s wrote one or two articles in which she attempted to identify M and KH. As recently as the 1970s, Geoffrey Barborka, George Linton and Virginia Hanson attempted to identify Koot Hoomi as Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyaya. From my own unpublished research on Chattopadhyaya, I am convinced that he is not Master K.H. for a number of very good reasons. Steve Richards in the American Theosophist several years ago tried to identify what Tibetan Buddhist sect Morya and Koot Hoomi belonged to. I believe that Johnson in his books does not mention any of this prior study and information. IMO, Johnson is as far off in his identifications of these two Masters as Barborka, Hanson and Linton were off in their identification of Koot Hoomi. All of these authors do not consider various information that throws grave doubt on their speculations. JRC, Richard I. and others on Theos-l are always being skeptical of what HP Blavatsky and other Theosophists (including Algeo) have written or said. That's fine and good with me. Certainly ask questions. But I have been equally critical and skeptical of Johnson's assumptions and statements. What's wrong with that? And I would say to JRC, RI, JS and others if you are going to be skeptical of "orthodox" commentators on Theosophy, be equally critical and skeptical of "unorthodox" versions as well. Also if you want to be a "zetetic skeptic" be just as critical of your own assumptions and beliefs. I dare say that our greatest blind spot is our OWN assumptions and background beliefs. And in the past I have noticed that a number of people posting on Theos-l/Theos- roots have given the impression that I was some sort of orthodox Theosophist or that I was "working" for the the various Societies in maintaining the status quo and combatting "heresies". Let me expand on this. Yes, I do agree with Dr. Algeo, for example, on many of his criticisms of Johnson's books. But this agreement, as far as I am consciously aware of it, is based upon my own understanding and research of the subject for almost 30 years. I do not naively accept or reject what Dr. Algeo writes because he is a PhD or because he is the president of the Wheaton T.S. My very good friend, the late Walter A. Carrithers, Jr., to whom I will ever be indebted, held many views about Blavatsky and her contemporaries which I totally disagree with. And my disagreement is based upon various evidence which I believe Carrithers did not, for whatever reasons, consider. A number of years ago, I published in Theosophical History a critique of Jean Overton Fuller's biography of HPB. Miss Fuller was not too pleased with my listing of dozens of her mistakes and misstatements. And as far as I know she has a fairly "orthodox" view of Blavatsky and her Masters. Take another example. I had published in The American Theosophist two years ago, my article on the origins of the "third volume" of the Secret Doctrine. My conclusions run contrary to the opinions of more than a dozen deep students of the SD including Carrithers, Barborka, de Zirkoff, Cleather, Ryan and others. Three current day students and friends of mine (Richard Robb, Dara Eklund and Ted G. Davy) still disagree with these conclusions of mine. I have listened to whatever input they have given me, but I still believe that my conclusions are clearly supported by the evidence. I write all of this to show that I don't approach this subject of HPB and her Masters with a rigid belief system or with a priori assumptions. I have gone out of my way since 1968 to collect everything ever written about Madame Blavatksy. WHY? So that I could read and decide for MYSELF what is what about HPB and her Masters; so that I would not naively believe or disbelieve based on second hand information. I try to look at the evidence (whatever it may be) and try to come to conclusions based on the preponderance of that evidence instead of letting my a prior assumptions determine my conclusions. And I am also aware of how little I sometimes really know! And I realize that after years of hard work and thinking through these complicated, complex issues, I may still be sadly mistaken on many of these subjects!! And I am always open to input from other people. Tell me I'm wrong but also please tell me how I am wrong, what I am not considering, what evidence I should look at. What assumption I should or should not be making. Etc. Etc. If Johnson thinks I have picked on him and have been unduly harsh with his speculations, he should read some of my unpublished material critiquing what various authors (including Marion Meade, Carrithers, de Zirkoff, Endersby and others) have written on HPB, the Masters and Theosophy. I say that one should cross off the name of the author of a book or an article and judge the contents on its own merits. Who cares who wrote the material! Is the text factual, accurate, fair, etc.? Has relevant material and evidence been ignored? Has the author carefully researched the material? What sources have been used and relied upon? Etc. Etc. I have even used this approach in researching the writings of Blavatsky and the Masters. This is a laborious job and very time consuming but the benefits of this approach are overwhelming. An example: Alan Bain has mentioned on theos-l within the last few months the Henry Kiddle speech from which Koot Hoomi allegedly plagiarized. Years ago, I went and found the original publication in which Henry Kiddle's speech was published. Then I went and studied chronologically every article, etc. that was written (pro, con and neutral) on the "Kiddle Incident." Including looking at the handwriting of the Mahatma Letter in which Koot Hoomi incorporates portions of Kiddle's speech. Maybe one of these days I will get around to writing an article on my discoveries. Of course, most Theosophists or critics of Theosophy could care less about doing this kind of indepth research. They might consider such research boring or they already have an opinion and evidence might get in the way! The same technique can be used in the study of HPB's writings and the the teachings contained therein. Some will say this is a very intellectual process but it is amazing how often after going through this laborious process (which can be sometimes very boring and exhausting) that various "intuitions" and "insights" enter one's mind. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 18:49:02 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Karma: law? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961224174902.00685cac@xs4all.nl> Triaist wrote: >It was my point that even though you may give yourself totally to humanity, >you are still subject to the same chance that bad/good things will happen to >you. Everyone's cumulative actions influence Karma. One person's action, >good or bad, gets thrown into a "karma pool" and is "diluted" within it. The >more bad that gets thrown in, the more bad exists in the karmic pool. >Therefore, more "bad" karma is manifested. Yes, I quite agree being subject to collective Karma - if you can call it so - but I wonder whether such a thing as a personal law of retribution exists for one's own deeds. Karma as a law of cause and effect for the individual is a typical reflection of the way of thinking in the second half of the past century, to assume that physical laws also apply to laws of behaviour. I have not seen any proof in the lives of people that there is any form of equal reward or punishment for one's acts. Of course I cannot oversee a chain of reincarnations of a particular person, but that is a subject for another debate. >I'm not sure, but your understanding of karma seems much like my own. You >seemed to disagree with it, and I'm grateful for your opinion, but after >reading your post, I'm still not quite sure about what aspect of it you >disagree with... see above: the reward/retribution aspect. I wonder is whether there is such a thing as retribution that Karma is usually associated with, or that there is an outside agency or law which passes judgement, punishing one for one's deeds. For example the person who causes misery to other beings will punish himself ultimately.. The person doing so will first of all steep and chain himself further to a level in which he will attract like-minded souls and suffer at one point or another from their behaviour (although he will often not realize the quality of his and their lives then). Secondly, if he (or she!) wants to pull himself as a Baron von Muenchausen by his hairs out of his pit he will find that he can only cut himself loose by (non-physical) dying on that level in order to move upward (By the same reasoning: there must be pleasure in sinking - involution). To die during one's life on one level in order to start functioning on another implies a battle with one's own inert nature, and/or to seek spiritual interference, for instance by means of prayer. It connects with what Kym wrote: > Yet, again, I am aware that, according to most doctrine, a >sign you are on the "up-swing" is when you disentangle yourself from earthly >beings and things - concentrating on the inward, on perfecting yourself, on >becoming undisturbed. that disentanglement causes hardship - falling over and picking oneself up again. The harder, the more one has become part of a way of life and delight in it.. Kym also wrote: >I guess the "Gods" did hanker for suffering since we hankered for the >"material" which is apparently the reason we got our "spirit/soul" dragged >"down here" in the first place. With "Gods" I meant actually "we". I do not know what came first hankering for a an unknown experience of delight versus suffering in a material mechanical world yet to be created, or a craving for sinking into the material world: involution. One implies the other. Michael Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:08:01 -0800 From: aclanton@corp.gnp.com (April Clanton) Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 776 Message-ID: <199612241908.LAA05180@boar.gnp.com> Merry christmas everyone. Sending warm thoughts and good wishes to all, you to Tom R. May you all have a very happy Christmas day and may all you and yours have a safe holiday. April Joy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:15:42 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: T-bonics Message-ID: <961224141542_1390068787@emout16.mail.aol.com> M.K. Ramadoss writes--> It is a good question. Even HPB and her Teachers, in their wisdom never tried to officially define the term. Good luck to anyone who thinks he/she can come up with a definition. Tom Robinson writes--> Then what _does_ the term mean, if it cannot be defined? Richard Ihle writes--> At last I have found the purpose of my life. Other men may have more significant purposes, but I have mine and I am content: My job is to continue offering definitions which either no one else agrees with or which no one else is able to notice no matter how many times the definitions are given. Thus, once more into the Void: ~theosophy~: "valid knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher perception." ~Theosophy~: "The Universal of which ~theosophy~ is the particular. ~Principal Theosophical Philosophy (PTP)~: "Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis as found in HPB and closely associated theosophical writings." ~Principal Theosophical Philosophy Plus (PTPP)~: "Cosmogenesis, Anthropogenesis, and Psychogenesis (the latter to be defined by the next Messenger, i.e., the first modern Theosophist who succeeds in getting other Theosophists to pay attention to his or her definitions)." Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:35:14 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <961224153513_743918458@emout04.mail.aol.com> John, Please don't start that First Object fight again. :) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 15:35:19 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: <961224153518_1155311226@emout08.mail.aol.com> Gertrude, A god can be anything he wants to be. So there! Chuck the Divine Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:48:10 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) Subject: Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections including Zetetic Skepticism Message-ID: <199612242048.NAA23830@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections including Zetetic Skepticism Jerry Schueler writes: >Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:09:15 -0500 >From: Jerry Schueler >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses >Paul, as I read your book, I too thought that your thesis >was that HPB used a combination of fact and fiction, rather >than your revealing any exact personalities. You left >this in terms of probabilities rather than definites. I agree >with you. BTW, what is your feeling on the identities given >to us by Alexis? I do not recall Dan ever rebutting Alexis' >identities of M and KH. I presume that he would be >opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities. Dan, >did you ever write a rebuttal of Alexis' revelations? Jerry, I would be most happy to write on Alexis' identities of the Masters M and KH. BUT he never provided me with enough information other than to say that Master M was really the Maharaja of Benares and KH was really Ranbir Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir. He did provide one other detail that he believed KH appearing at Lahore in Nov. 1883 was really Ranbir Singh. Compare this with what KP Johnson says: KH appearing at Lahore was really Thakar Singh. I would assume that most of us would agree that at least one of these hypothesis on KH is flat wrong! Alexis never provided his reasoning, his evidence or his sources for these bare statements. When I asked him for such, he simply became negative with me and threw insults my way. If you, Jerry, can get him to provide us with more details, evidence, reasoning, etc., I will undertake a historical analysis of his hypotheses. My analysis may turn out to be a rebuttal of his hypotheses. Maybe not. I am somewhat intrigued with his hypothesis that Morya was really the Maharaja of Benares. Jerry writes: >I presume that he [Dan?] would be >opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities... I am assuming that you mean that I would be opposed to any attempt by Johnson or anyone else to identify the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi with any "human personalities". If this is what you mean, then I will definitely say you are wrong in your presumption. From my study of the original source documents of HPB's time, I am inclined to believe that Morya and Koot Hoomi were physical human beings with human personalities and therefore, they had names and addresses, etc. In theory, I see no reason why one could not identify who Morya and Koot Hoomi were. It's a matter of looking at the evidence and seeing if one can make a positive identification or not. I simply believe in light of what I present in my HOUSE OF CARDS that Johnson is barking up the WRONG tree. JRC in a recent post says that one Theosophical organization wants to keep the Masters mysterious. Well, this may be true. I don't know if such a broad generalization is true but I do know that a number of students of Blavatsky have told me that one should not delve into the personalities of the Masters and that to do so would be like snooping. But I try to approach the subject like a historican. What is the evidence? In what direction does the preponderance of evidence lead us in our conclusions? A number of attempts have been undertaken before Johnson's books were written to name the Masters. Mary K. Neff in the 1940s wrote one or two articles in which she attempted to identify M and KH. As recently as the 1970s, Geoffrey Barborka, George Linton and Virginia Hanson attempted to identify Koot Hoomi as Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyaya. From my own unpublished research on Chattopadhyaya, I am convinced that he is not Master K.H. for a number of very good reasons. Steve Richards in the American Theosophist several years ago tried to identify what Tibetan Buddhist sect Morya and Koot Hoomi belonged to. I believe that Johnson in his books does not mention any of this prior study and information. IMO, Johnson is as far off in his identifications of these two Masters as Barborka, Hanson and Linton were off in their identification of Koot Hoomi. All of these authors do not consider various information that throws grave doubt on their speculations. JRC, Richard I. and others on Theos-l are always being skeptical of what HP Blavatsky and other Theosophists (including Algeo) have written or said. That's fine and good with me. Certainly ask questions. But I have been equally critical and skeptical of Johnson's assumptions and statements. What's wrong with that? And I would say to JRC, RI, JS and others if you are going to be skeptical of "orthodox" commentators on Theosophy, be equally critical and skeptical of "unorthodox" versions as well. Also if you want to be a "zetetic skeptic" be just as critical of your own assumptions and beliefs. I dare say that our greatest blind spot is our OWN assumptions and background beliefs. And in the past I have noticed that a number of people posting on Theos-l/Theos- roots have given the impression that I was some sort of orthodox Theosophist or that I was "working" for the the various Societies in maintaining the status quo and combatting "heresies". Let me expand on this. Yes, I do agree with Dr. Algeo, for example, on many of his criticisms of Johnson's books. But this agreement, as far as I am consciously aware of it, is based upon my own understanding and research of the subject for almost 30 years. I do not naively accept or reject what Dr. Algeo writes because he is a PhD or because he is the president of the Wheaton T.S. My very good friend, the late Walter A. Carrithers, Jr., to whom I will ever be indebted, held many views about Blavatsky and her contemporaries which I totally disagree with. And my disagreement is based upon various evidence which I believe Carrithers did not, for whatever reasons, consider. A number of years ago, I published in Theosophical History a critique of Jean Overton Fuller's biography of HPB. Miss Fuller was not too pleased with my listing of dozens of her mistakes and misstatements. And as far as I know she has a fairly "orthodox" view of Blavatsky and her Masters. Take another example. I had published in The American Theosophist two years ago, my article on the origins of the "third volume" of the Secret Doctrine. My conclusions run contrary to the opinions of more than a dozen deep students of the SD including Carrithers, Barborka, de Zirkoff, Cleather, Ryan and others. Three current day students and friends of mine (Richard Robb, Dara Eklund and Ted G. Davy) still disagree with these conclusions of mine. I have listened to whatever input they have given me, but I still believe that my conclusions are clearly supported by the evidence. I write all of this to show that I don't approach this subject of HPB and her Masters with a rigid belief system or with a priori assumptions. I have gone out of my way since 1968 to collect everything ever written about Madame Blavatksy. WHY? So that I could read and decide for MYSELF what is what about HPB and her Masters; so that I would not naively believe or disbelieve based on second hand information. I try to look at the evidence (whatever it may be) and try to come to conclusions based on the preponderance of that evidence instead of letting my a prior assumptions determine my conclusions. And I am also aware of how little I sometimes really know! And I realize that after years of hard work and thinking through these complicated, complex issues, I may still be sadly mistaken on many of these subjects!! And I am always open to input from other people. Tell me I'm wrong but also please tell me how I am wrong, what I am not considering, what evidence I should look at. What assumption I should or should not be making. Etc. Etc. If Johnson thinks I have picked on him and have been unduly harsh with his speculations, he should read some of my unpublished material critiquing what various authors (including Marion Meade, Carrithers, de Zirkoff, Endersby and others) have written on HPB, the Masters and Theosophy. I say that one should cross off the name of the author of a book or an article and judge the contents on its own merits. Who cares who wrote the material! Is the text factual, accurate, fair, etc.? Has relevant material and evidence been ignored? Has the author carefully researched the material? What sources have been used and relied upon? Etc. Etc. I have even used this approach in researching the writings of Blavatsky and the Masters. This is a laborious job and very time consuming but the benefits of this approach are overwhelming. An example: Alan Bain has mentioned on theos-l within the last few months the Henry Kiddle speech from which Koot Hoomi allegedly plagiarized. Years ago, I went and found the original publication in which Henry Kiddle's speech was published. Then I went and studied chronologically every article, etc. that was written (pro, con and neutral) on the "Kiddle Incident." Including looking at the handwriting of the Mahatma Letter in which Koot Hoomi incorporates portions of Kiddle's speech. Maybe one of these days I will get around to writing an article on my discoveries. Of course, most Theosophists or critics of Theosophy could care less about doing this kind of indepth research. They might consider such research boring or they already have an opinion and evidence might get in the way! The same technique can be used in the study of HPB's writings and the the teachings contained therein. Some will say this is a very intellectual process but it is amazing how often after going through this laborious process (which can be sometimes very boring and exhausting) that various "intuitions" and "insights" enter one's mind. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 13:05:16 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <199612242105.NAA03192@scv1.apple.com> >The difference between Theosophy and and Christianity is that >Christians are reluctant to change. They try desperately not to investigate >their beliefs, and prefer to act on faith. I see a lot more willingness to change and grow in liberal Christianity (e.g., Matthew Fox) than I do in any branch of occultism, including Theosophy. Rigidity is a problem common to most religious or spiritual movements -- because of their interest in ideas which cannot be subjected to rational scrutiny, they develop emotional defense mechanisms to preserve the integrity of their belief structure. Theosophy has a very clearly discernable set of defenses, which are already obvious to anyone who has read much Theosophical polemic, so I need not go over them here. One defense shared by many religions is an automatic assumption of superiority to other religions. This works by implicitly asking a question: "Well, maybe we're not perfect, but look at the alternatives! Do you want us to become {Christians, Moslems, Hindus, occultists, etc.}?" This helps to limit people's consideration of alternative spiritual paths and to keep them from rationally weighing their own tradition against others. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:27:20 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <19961225012717.AAA12308@LOCALNAME> At 02:23 PM 12/24/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > If you look at the three objects of TS, Theosophy - Theo-sophia has >never been officially defined. If it was that easy to *define*, I am sure >HPB would have simply and clearly defined it and written it into the three >objects. In the first half of the first volume of "The Secret Doctrine," HPB made at least 10 dogmatic statements, even using the very word "dogma" more than once, about the fundamental laws of occultism. It is impossible for anyone to say anything without there being some element of dogmatism. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:27:23 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <19961225012717.AAB12308@LOCALNAME> At 09:09 PM 12/24/96 +0000, Tim Maroney wrote: >One defense shared by many religions is an automatic assumption of >superiority to other religions. This works by implicitly asking a >question: "Well, maybe we're not perfect, but look at the alternatives! >Do you want us to become {Christians, Moslems, Hindus, occultists, >etc.}?" This helps to limit people's consideration of alternative >spiritual paths and to keep them from rationally weighing their own >tradition against others. It is impossible not to consider one's own ideas as superior, since, if the ideas of others were regarded as superior, those ideas would automatically be adopted as one's own. If I did not consider Theosophy to be superior to Christianity, I would be a Christian, not a Theosophist. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:27:27 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: T-bonics Message-ID: <19961225012717.AAC12308@LOCALNAME> >M.K. Ramadoss writes--> >It is a good question. Even HPB and her Teachers, in their wisdom never tried >to officially define the term. Good luck to anyone who thinks he/she can come >up with a definition. > >Tom Robinson writes--> >Then what _does_ the term mean, if it cannot be defined? > >Richard Ihle writes--> >At last I have found the purpose of my life. Other men may have more >significant purposes, but I have mine and I am content: My job is to >continue offering definitions which either no one else agrees with or which >no one else is able to notice no matter how many times the definitions are >given. > >Thus, once more into the Void: > >~theosophy~: "valid knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally >derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher >perception." > >~Theosophy~: "The Universal of which ~theosophy~ is the particular. > >~Principal Theosophical Philosophy (PTP)~: "Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis >as found in HPB and closely associated theosophical writings." > >~Principal Theosophical Philosophy Plus (PTPP)~: "Cosmogenesis, >Anthropogenesis, and Psychogenesis (the latter to be defined by the next >Messenger, i.e., the first modern Theosophist who succeeds in getting other >Theosophists to pay attention to his or her definitions)." I disagree. The final, official definition of Theosophy is "the dogmatic creed that says that a spirit of brotherhood is the ideal." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 18:45:26 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Dec 1996, Tom Robertson wrote: > > They most assuredly do *not*. The Three Objects "define" the > >purpose of theosophical organizations. Neither HPB, nor Olcott, nor the > >Masters in the Mahatma Letters *ever* even suggested, let alone insisted > >upon, any of that controlling garbage. > > If the belief that Jesus died on the cross to save from their sins those who > believe that he died on the cross to save them from their sins is just as > Theosophical as to believe in the one divine, homogeneous > substance-principle, which HPB referred to as a "fundamental dogma," then > the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. It is my *personal* belief that *both* statements could both *be* and *not be* "Theosophical". Theosophy is as much a *perspective* as anything else. For instance, a Lodge could (in fact, Lodges *have*) take the basic belief that "Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins", and examine that belief - exploring its metaphorical, mythological, and esoteric connotations; could then study its relation to myth-structures from other traditions ... the Osirian myth in ancient Egypt, the stories about Krishna, etc., etc.; its personal, social, political, cultural and religious ramifications could be included - until finally at the end of a month of meetings, some people in the group may well conclude that there actually *is* a sense in which it might be said that "Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins" - but the meaning of that statement has little to do with the sense in which a Christian fundamentalist would understand it. Even further, (IMO), the mere act of having such discussions, engaging that level of thinking in the lodge would slightly alter the mental atmosphere of the community in which the meetings were held. And the entire exercise would be nothing other than a pure expression of the Second Object. Say, then, that the week after that, a speaker comes from Headquarters, and gives a lecture on "the one, divine, homogenous substance-principle" - and in the discussion, people begin critisizing the idea, a physicist claims it to be little other than an archaic belief in "ether", a psychologist refuses to accept it as "fact" and insists upon analyzing it as a *metaphor*, etc., etc - but the speaker then insists it be accepted as true, because HPB wrote it, and insists it be approached not as a hypothesis to be proved or disproved, but as a "truth" to be accepted on faith. Which one of those scenarios is more "theosophical"? The question of what Theosophy "is" is not nearly so simple as defining a set of ideas and then saying everything that conforms to them *is*, and everything that does not *isn't*. The way ideas are approached is every bit as much a part of the equation as what ideas are - and *fundamentalists* exist in the TS to every bit the same degree they exist in Christianity ... and the rigidity of their thought is equally chilling in both places. > > >There is an *enormous* range of opinion and > >belief about what constitues Theosophy - as there was *designed* to be. > > If you are saying that John Algeo's opinion of what constitutes Theosophy is > too limited, what limit would you say, without being dogmatic yourself, it > should have? If you believe there should be no limit, you are saying that > the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. Two answers to that: First, the limits found throughout the writings of HPB and the Mahatma Letters are fine with me - but Wheaton currently seeks to set considerably narrower limits ... leading to the second, and far more significant point: To frame the debate as simply Algeo's conception of Theosophy vs. mine (or anyone else's) is to assume it to be a valid debate between equal participants - but this is most assuredly *not* the case ... the difference is that no matter what *my* personal views of Theosophy are, my own definitions or conceptions, I would *never* have the utter intellectual *arrogance* to *impose* them as standards that every new Lodge or Study Center would have to meet during its "probationary" period. IMO Algeo's opinions are just that ... Algeo's opinions - no more or less valid than those of people (and there are many) who have also studied Theosophy for years, have conceptions far different than he does, and can back them up with as much intellectual rigor as he can. Apparently, however, he and a little group of people at Headquarters are incapable of handling genuine diversity of thought ... and are using institutional power to enforce their own particular conception. Curiously enough, I notice that membership in the TS is declining, while membership on this list is increasing. The people pursuing their goals at Headquarters will soon get exactly what they desire ... the only people left in the Society will be those that agree with them. IMO, HPB, when she was alive, was the only one with the standing to impose conditions of membership on members or Lodges - and the only condition she imposed was acceptance of the Three Objects. > >It was meant to be something broad enough to encompass all races, religions, > >creeds and castes > > What about the creed that men should dominate over women? What about the > creed that, since Jews threaten the existence of the master Aryan race, they > should all be annihilated? Do you consider those creeds just as > Theosophical as the laws of karma and of cyclicity? You can't just call an idea a "creed". A creed is (according to Webster) a very specific thing: A brief, authoritative formula or religious belief, or a set of fundamental beliefs ... as in the Apostle's Creed, or the Four Noble Truths, etc., etc. And no, not any "creed" is acceptable within Theosophy - because the other clause in the First Object speaks of a common family of humanity - the full idea being to form a nucleus of people who belong to every part of the human family, and that can look beyond their acculturated perspectives on race, creed, sex, caste, and color, and find some deeper commonality. A belief system that holds that it is correct for some portion of that humanity to dominate or slaughter some other portion simply does not meet the test of the First Object. > If you would never draw a line, the word "Theosophy" is meaningless. Its kind of a cheap rhetorical trick to state the extreme of something and then argue "well, see, *some* line has to be drawn, or *Hitler* would have been welcomed". It rarely furthers an argument, because, it can always be answered by extending the line to its *opposite* extreme: If you see no problem with Algeo & Co. defining "Theosophy", and using the full force of the organization to impose that definition - then where do you draw the line? Theosophy becomes nothing other than a *cult*. If they have the right to impose *content* restrictions on what Lodges study, where does this end? If a group must study some little faction's conception of "basic Theosophy" for a certain period of time, and then be *approved* by that faction before they are permitted to become a Lodge - why could they not go further and require not just study of the ideas in that conception, but *acceptance* of it ... do you see the utter ugliness in this principle? The potentials for enormous abuse? Even if I *agreed* with the particular perspective of that faction currently running HQ, I'd be deeply disturbed at what is going on. To argue that "some line has to be drawn somewhere or Theosophy is meaningless" has two glaring errors in it - first, the assumption that people, *individual members and Lodges* somehow are not capable of determining *for themselves* where that line should be drawn, but rather need HQ to act like some sort of parent making sure the kids don't get into trouble. Since Algeo took over, the entire TS seems to have been treated like students in one of his freshman English seminars. And the second error lies in the implication that there is some danger of Theosophy becoming too vague and undefined ... if you take a line, and say one end of it represents total openness - no definitions or distinctions at all - and the other end represents total control and definition by Headquarters, not only is the current TS tilted towards the latter, but has been moving slowly and steadily in that direction for some time now. Little by little a small group has revised Bylaws and passed new ones whose effect is to make it virtually impossible for anyone not approved by them to hold office, gives them the power to sieze the financial resources of Lodges, permits nothing other than the perspective they approve of any presence in the AT or TPH, allows them to place new Lodges on *probation* ... etc., etc. It is specious to argue that there is some danger of a Theosophical Lodge studying "Mein Kampf" - the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*. > You would also face strong > disagreement with most participants on this list, since one of the > aforementioned creeds was categorically condemned as being untheosophical, I presume you are referring to the pummelling you took for wanting to talk about women being superior in some ways to men. But this is a terrible example to use to make your case. some of your statements *were* called "untheosophical" - but if I remember right, you also expressed *your* opinion that some of the responses to you were "untheosophical", dispareged people for not responding to you rationally and with the tone you desired, and wound up saying the list was little other than a platform for a feminist agenda. Well, welcome to the wacky, *unmoderated* world of theos-l. People talk about whatever they wish, respond however they like, in whatever tone they want, at whatever level they choose, and there is a literally *massive* diversity of opinion about what does and does not constitute "Theosophy", and what is or is not "theosophical" behaviour. Clearly the list doesn't fulfill your expectations, doesn't discourse in a way you are comfortable with, and does not fully meet with *your* definition of what Theosophy is. Guess what ... the same can be said of *everyone on the list*. But that is not a negative, but rather the list's highest *virtue*. Most who have stayed on for some time would probably say they have grown in ways not available elsewhere precisely *because* this list has the habit of being outside *everyone's* comfort zone at one time or another. Not only will people not agree with your ideas, they will not even agree with your conception of how the disagreement should be discussed. People will call you "untheosophical" because you don't fit *their* definitions; you will call *them* "untheosophical" because they don't fit yours. But at the end of the thread, everyone that participated (and many that listened) will usually find that while no final point of agreement was reached, and few had their opinions altered more than a bit, almost everyone is a bit clearer *within themselves* about what exactly their conceptions are, can articulate them with greater precision, and see those conceptions as having been slightly refined. *Please notice* that no one, during the entire discussion, asked John Mead to step in and moderate the list, censure any of your comments, or remove you from the list. The list is, IMO, Theosophy at its finest - *no one* has been able to dominate it with their particular perspective, nothing other than the free will of all the members determines what topics are discussed nor how the discussions unfold; its members are from a large variety of nations, religious, scientific and philosophical perspectives, trades and professions, and Theosophical organizations. Freedom of thought often looks horribly *sloppy*, and points of real negativity are occaisionally reached ... but the upside of that freedom, of the wide variety of perspectives coupled with the lack of any individual or faction being able to control discussion .... is that there have been discussions here more vigorous, thought provoking, and educational than normally happens in most Lodges ... discussions that now would not even be *permitted* by Wheaton in a "probationary" Lodge. "There is no religion higher than truth" - but the enormity of "truth" in relation to the miniscule size of the human ability to understand it seems to imply that no one can see anything but the tiniest little slice of it ... and the way that slice is *expanded* is not by sitting in a room where everyone agrees with it, but by being forced way out of the comfort zone created by that slice. HPB had the spiritual stature to understand this ... and declined to impose any ideological considerations as a condition of membership or Lodge formation. (In fact, all evidence seems to point to the fact that she'd be *appalled* to think that anyone was being forced to become familiar with her writings as a condition of acceptance as a Lodge - some of her most scathing words are reserved for the imposition of dogmas by priesthoods). I will say, by the way, that if you stay on the list, there is another curious phenomena that sometimes happens here - you may find yourself locked in heated and almost violent debate with a couple on some subject, and find yourself allied in a stunningly complimentary way with the same people two weeks later on a different subject. I have seen very close and deep friendships form between people who began as wild combatents. Believe it or not, while people may have seemed to blast you, I doubt there's a single person that would actually not want you to stay on the list. Myself (for whatever the hell that's worth (-:), included. Merry Christmas, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 18:58:30 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <199612250259.SAA70072@scv3.apple.com> >It is impossible not to consider one's own ideas as superior, since, if the >ideas of others were regarded as superior, those ideas would automatically >be adopted as one's own. If I did not consider Theosophy to be superior to >Christianity, I would be a Christian, not a Theosophist. Is there some reason you can't be both? While Blavatsky was doggedly anti-Christian, there were plenty of others such as Leadbeater who sought to reconcile the paths. Also, in a spiritual sense, is it really necessary to form some rigid hierarchy of the value of ideas? To the illumined eye are not all ideations far more similar than different -- all truth, all lies, all somewhere in between? Don't all literalistic ideas deconstruct themselves into "working myths" under meditation? It is just as true or just as false to say that there were epistolary Mahatmas in the nineteenth century as it is to say that God raised himself from the dead in the first. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 21:51:38 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: T-bonics Message-ID: <199612250451.VAA21889@snowden.micron.net> >>Richard Ihle writes--> >>At last I have found the purpose of my life. Other men may have more >>significant purposes, but I have mine and I am content: My job is to >>continue offering definitions which either no one else agrees with or which >>no one else is able to notice no matter how many times the definitions are >>given. >> >>Thus, once more into the Void: >> >>~theosophy~: "valid knowledge which has its base in, or at least originally >>derives from, transcendental, mystical, or intuitive insight or higher >>perception." >> >>~Theosophy~: "The Universal of which ~theosophy~ is the particular. >> >>~Principal Theosophical Philosophy (PTP)~: "Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis >>as found in HPB and closely associated theosophical writings." >> >>~Principal Theosophical Philosophy Plus (PTPP)~: "Cosmogenesis, >>Anthropogenesis, and Psychogenesis (the latter to be defined by the next >>Messenger, i.e., the first modern Theosophist who succeeds in getting other >>Theosophists to pay attention to his or her definitions)." Tom Robertson writes: > >I disagree. The final, official definition of Theosophy is "the dogmatic >creed that says that a spirit of brotherhood is the ideal." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:29:15 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <961225012915_1088273507@emout05.mail.aol.com> JRC, my brother and friend, your long post to Tom was exceptional. You were a ~very~ good boy on Christmas Eve. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 02:21:20 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@rci.ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: > > Gertrude, > > A god can be anything he wants to be. > > So there! > > Chuck the Divine Heretic > And, we all know that goddesses are Superior! (smile) Gertrude, the goddess, Churchmouse-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 09:25:02 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Paul's House of Cards Message-ID: <19961225092500.AAA28321@LOCALNAME> At 01:49 AM 12/25/96 +0000, JRC wrote: > Say, then, that the week after that, a speaker comes from >Headquarters, and gives a lecture on "the one, divine, homogenous >substance-principle" - and in the discussion, people begin critisizing the >idea, a physicist claims it to be little other than an archaic belief in >"ether", a psychologist refuses to accept it as "fact" and insists upon >analyzing it as a *metaphor*, etc., etc - but the speaker then insists it >be accepted as true, because HPB wrote it, and insists it be approached >not as a hypothesis to be proved or disproved, but as a "truth" to be >accepted on faith. > Which one of those scenarios is more "theosophical"? If the idea of "the one, divine, homogenous substance-principle" is true, both parties in this latter scenario are untheosophical, one because it does not seek truth with enough of an open mind, the other because it has not found enough of the truth. >The question >of what Theosophy "is" is not nearly so simple as defining a set of ideas >and then saying everything that conforms to them *is*, and everything >that does not *isn't*. The way ideas are approached is every bit as much a >part of the equation as what ideas are - and *fundamentalists* exist in >the TS to every bit the same degree they exist in Christianity ... and the >rigidity of their thought is equally chilling in both places. This implies that it does not matter what truth is found as long as it is sought with an open mind, which is contradictory. >To frame the debate as simply >Algeo's conception of Theosophy vs. mine (or anyone else's) is to assume >it to be a valid debate between equal participants - but this is most >assuredly *not* the case ... the difference is that no matter what *my* >personal views of Theosophy are, my own definitions or conceptions, I >would *never* have the utter intellectual *arrogance* to *impose* them as >standards that every new Lodge or Study Center would have to meet during >its "probationary" period. The only difference is that he is in a position of authority and you are not. If he should not "impose" any of his ideas on anyone, what purpose would his being in office have? > Its kind of a cheap rhetorical trick to state the extreme of >something and then argue "well, see, *some* line has to be drawn, or >*Hitler* would have been welcomed". I find it interesting that you consider the use of logic to be "a cheap rhetorical trick," while contending that _I_ am not interested in intelligent discussion. That you merely labelled the idea that either some line has to be drawn or Hitler would have been welcomed as "cheap" without showing how it is illogical means that _you_ lack interest in intelligent discussion. >It rarely furthers an argument, >because, it can always be answered by extending the line to its *opposite* >extreme: If you see no problem with Algeo & Co. defining "Theosophy", and >using the full force of the organization to impose that definition - then >where do you draw the line? Theosophy becomes nothing other than a *cult*. You have the responsibility for incorporating extremes exactly backwards. You are saying that "Algeo & Co." goes to extremes, and then, when someone responds to that by showing that the logical conclusion of what you are saying is absurd, you illogically say that, though Theosophy must have no creed, not all creeds are acceptable within it. I fail to see how any creed can be excluded without having a creed. "Algeo & Co." are _not_ imposing their definition of Theosophy on anyone. They are defining what a particular organization will stand for. Anyone who does not want to stand for what that organization stands for is not forced to be a member. To say that they are imposing anything on anyone is like saying that taxation is imposed on people, when it is actually just part of a contract which people are free to decline. >If they have the right to impose *content* restrictions on what Lodges >study, where does this end? If a group must study some little faction's >conception of "basic Theosophy" for a certain period of time, and then be >*approved* by that faction before they are permitted to become a Lodge - >why could they not go further and require not just study of the ideas in >that conception, but *acceptance* of it ... do you see the utter ugliness >in this principle? The potentials for enormous abuse? I hereby demand that you believe that Mars and Mercury are part of the terrene planetary chain. To be consistent with what you just said, you must claim that I have just "imposed" my belief on you. The end result of what you are saying is that there should be no such thing as a Theosophical organization. I disagree. I believe Theosophy is better served by having an organization, and that definition of what that organization stands for is necessary. >Even if I *agreed* >with the particular perspective of that faction currently running HQ, I'd >be deeply disturbed at what is going on. To argue that "some line has >to be drawn somewhere or Theosophy is meaningless" has two glaring errors >in it - first, the assumption that people, *individual members and Lodges* >somehow are not capable of determining *for themselves* where that line >should be drawn, but rather need HQ to act like some sort of parent making >sure the kids don't get into trouble. It would be absurd to have an organization and then let every group within that organization do whatever they want to do and say whatever they want to say, implying that everything is sanctioned by the organization. There would be no organization if that were to happen. To be part of an organization requires conformity to what defines the organization. >the second error lies in the implication that there is some >danger of Theosophy becoming too vague and undefined I see no more danger of Theosophy becoming too vague and undefined than I see danger of a glass that just fell and shattered from falling again. It already _is_ too vague and undefined. >the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million >dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges >for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*. The next time I see Willamay Pym, I will ask her if the TS spent half a million dollars suing one of its lodges for studying Alice Bailey. Without any definite information, and just from 3 years' experience in the TS, I would be astonished if she said that they had. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 09:45:46 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: T-bonics Message-ID: <19961225094544.AAA3112@LOCALNAME> At 04:55 AM 12/25/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>The final, official definition of Theosophy is "the dogmatic >>creed that says that a spirit of brotherhood is the ideal." > > I have rarely seen such a profound demonstration of "the voice of the silence." To show her complete acquiescence in my final definition of "Theosophy" simply by not saying anything is a stroke of genius on Kym's part. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 07:29:36 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199612251330.IAA16147@cliff.cris.com> A verrrry Merrrry Christmas/Winter Solstice to everyone on the list. Though I may roam far and wide in cyberspace, there is none better nor fairer mailing list than theos-l. And it would be even better, if the robots that control this list would stop spontaneously unsubscribing me. For those located in other regions than the US Midwest, it's going to be around 15 degrees in Chicago on Christmas day with snow coming in tonight and the promise of several inches by tommorrow. It will be our first significant snow of the season. Many miles to the west, Olcott and Chuck C. may be digging out as well. Happy 1997 to you all, -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 18:38:02 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections includ... Message-ID: <961224183802_1390101813@emout20.mail.aol.com> Daniel, A good post. It is always interesting to learn a little more about the work and lives of other Theosophists. I am also glad to have my misperception cleared up (i.e., my thinking that you might be opposed to ~any~ identification of the Masters with human figures if such identification compromised the assumption that HPB's teachings were the result of indefectable supernatural dispensations). This, I believe, is precisely the reason for John Algeo's opposition to Paul's work, however. I don't have time to look up the exact quote, however, but I remember him saying something like, "Johnson's work is contrary to the traditional conception of the Masters." Radha's "Request for Blessings" or whatever it was in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST also shows that she also has the "traditional conception" of the still-existing Masters guiding events from the Great White Lodge somewhere. But, believe it or not, I am an agnostic on this subject. We all see things in our own ways, and I, like you, want HPB's writings and the Theosophical Society to survive for the future. I am entirely sincere when I tell you that I see ~everything~ sooner or later going down the drain unless the TS comes to its senses on the issue of the Masters. In my opinion, the modern world is simply going to more and more reject an organization which proclaims not only that it has the Truth, but also that the reason it knows it has the Truth is that it was given by precipitated letter etc. from Wonder-Working Watchers who remain alive and watching even now. In my opinion, it does not even matter whether the "traditional conception" of the Masters is valid or is not. What matters is that such a concept does not sell very well right now, and the indications are that it will sell even less well in the future. The only hope, in my opinion, is to restore the "epistemological" definition of ~theosophy~ and attract the large number of Truth-seekers in this world who are willing to consider transcendentally based knowledge. Of these, I believe, there will be many who will come to agree with you and me that HPB is the greatest theosophist of all times. And on this latter point, I know we are on the same team, Daniel. Merry Christmas to all and to all, Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 09:48:45 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > A verrrry Merrrry Christmas/Winter Solstice > to everyone on the list. My wishes to everyone also! > For those located in other regions than the US Midwest, > it's going to be around 15 degrees in Chicago on Christmas day > with snow coming in tonight and the promise of several > inches by tommorrow. It will be our first significant > snow of the season. > Many miles to the west, Olcott and Chuck C. may be digging out as well. Many more miles to the west, I just woke up here in western Montana - to around 5 feet of snow ... no part of the car parked in front of my house is visible, it just looks like the bottom ball of a *really* big snowman. My next door neighbor just walked past my house towards the store - in her snowshoes. By god its gonna be a *fun* Christmas (-:). Merry Christmas all! -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 13:06:54 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961225130654_2086863544@emout20.mail.aol.com> Nothing like snow to spoil the Xmas atmos. But happy Saturnalia anyway. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 13:11:20 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Married Adepts Message-ID: <961225131118_744016192@emout04.mail.aol.com> Gertrude, You are taking unfair advantage of the fact that this is the feast of my fellow god Sol Invictus or I would smite you mightily. (Now let me see, where did I put that bottle of lumbago?) Chuck the Heretic and Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 14:14:18 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: T-bonics Message-ID: <199612252114.OAA04142@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >At 04:55 AM 12/25/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > >>Tom Robertson writes: > >>>The final, official definition of Theosophy is "the dogmatic >>>creed that says that a spirit of brotherhood is the ideal." >> >> > >I have rarely seen such a profound demonstration of "the voice of the >silence." To show her complete acquiescence in my final definition of >"Theosophy" simply by not saying anything is a stroke of genius on Kym's part. Your shot over my bow has not gone unnoticed; along with your admittedly artful catch of my technical erratum - you were also clever enough to do it where it would appear on a day when retribution is supposed to be at its ebb. I'm impressed. However, being the refined and gentle woman I am, I must warn you that when these 'goodwill toward MEN' days have passed - I plan on morphing back into the decorum of Scorpio. And I am sure you will again venture into hazardous territory. So I can only say. . .be afraid, be very afraid. Yet, somehow, Tom R., I still wish you a Merry Christmas - imagine that. :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:41:02 GMT From: bbrown@whanganui.ac.nz (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <32c1acbc.14772036@mail> On Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:53:14 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > >> A verrrry Merrrry Christmas/Winter Solstice >> to everyone on the list. > My wishes to everyone also! > >> For those located in other regions than the US Midwest, >> it's going to be around 15 degrees in Chicago on Christmas day >> with snow coming in tonight and the promise of several >> inches by tommorrow. It will be our first significant >> snow of the season. >> Many miles to the west, Olcott and Chuck C. may be digging out as well. > Many more miles to the west, I just woke up here in western >Montana - to around 5 feet of snow ... no part of the car parked in front >of my house is visible, it just looks like the bottom ball of a *really* >big snowman. My next door neighbor just walked past my house towards the >store - in her snowshoes. By god its gonna be a *fun* Christmas (-:). > Merry Christmas all! -JRC > > Merry Xmas from NZ. It looks like we are heading for 25°C or 80F. As today is Boxing Day, lots of people will be at the beach or having barbecues in the back yards. Bee Member Theosophy NZ, T.I. Life is not a problem to be solved; it is a mystery to be lived. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:43:20 -0500 (EST) From: "John E. Mead" Subject: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <199612260143.UAA17704@pop2.vnet.net> The agreement each member makes when joining the society is to (conceptually) accept the three objects. a couple points: 1. Hitler's acts violated these objects. 2. Paul Johnson has not violated these objects. (a very bad comparison) it is my experience that to *want to* define a line to demarcate ideas as "un-theosophical" is *itself* untheosophical. i.e. we should not talk about *where* the line should be drawn ... but ... *why* would one even *WANT* to?? peace - john e. m. p.s. the discussions/activity Paul Johnson's work(s) provoke amoung the Theosophical scholars is ample evidence that his work should be published in Theosophical presses. His work must be very thought provoking and interesting for it to consume so much bandwidth. i.e. the importance of the work is often related to the controversy provoked. He should thank his attackers for the free promotion. ----------------------------------------------------------- John E. Mead jem@vnet.net Owner: Theos-L etc.; http://users.vnet.net/jem/theos-l.html Member: TSA; Theosophy International (TI) "Physics is impossible without imaginary numbers. Mathematics is impossible without consciousness" ----------------------------------------------------------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 19:51:18 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: 1900 Letter from Master K.H. Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961226015118.00684410@mail.eden.com> I am re-posting the famous 1900 Letter from Master K.H. It appears that as far as TS is concerned, it is relevant today as it was relevant in 1900. Many here has seen this letter and those who have not seen it may find it interesting. ============================================= THE 1900 LETTER A psychic and a pranayamist who has got confused by the vagaries of the members. The T.S. and its members are slowly manufacturing a creed. Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity breeds credulity and ends in hypocrisy." How few are they who can know anything about us. Are we to be propitiated and made idols of. IS THE WORSHIP OF A NEW TRINITY MADE UP OF THE BLESSED M., UPASIKA AND YOURSELF TO TAKE THE PLACE OF EXPLODED CREEDS. WE ASK NOT FOR THE WORSHIP OF OURSELVES. THE DISCIPLE SHOULD IN NO WAY BE FETTERED. BEWARE OF AN ESOTERIC POPERY. The intense desire to see Upasika reincarnate at once has raised a misleading Mayavic ideation. Upasika has useful work to do on higher planes and cannot come again so soon. The T.S. must safely be ushered into the new century. YOU HAVE FOR SOME TIME BEEN UNDER DELUDING INFLUENCES. SHUN PRIDE, VANITY AND LOVE OF POWER. BE NOT GUIDED BY EMOTION BUT LEARN TO STAND ALONE. BE ACCURATE AND CRITICAL RATHER THAN CREDULOUS. THE MISTAKE OF THE PAST IN THE OLD RELIGIONS MUST NOT BE GLOSSED OVER WITH IMAGINARY EXPLANATIONS. THE E.S.T. MUST BE REFORMED SO AS TO BE AS UNSECTARIAN AND CREEDLESS AS THE T.S. THE RULES MUST BE FEW AND SIMPLE AND ACCEPTABLE TO ALL. No one has the right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. Ask him not what he believes. ALL WHO ARE SINCERE AND PURE MINDED MUST HAVE ADMITTANCE. The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into spirituality. It cannot be forced into beliefs and emotional worship. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S. and E.S. We never try to subject to ourselves the will of another. At favourable times we let loose elevating influences which strike various persons in various ways. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that can give the correct note of action. We show no favours. The best corrective of error is an honest and open-minded examination of all facts subjective and objective. MISLEADING SECRECY HAS GIVEN THE DEATH BLOW TO NUMEROUS ORGANIZATIONS. The cant about "Masters" must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part. Namelessly and silently we work and the continual references to ourselves and the repetition of our names raises up a confused aura that hinders our work. YOU WILL HAVE TO LEAVE A GOOD DEAL OF YOUR EMOTIONS AND CREDULITY BEFORE YOU BECOME A SAFE GUIDE AMONG THE INFLUENCES THAT WILL COMMENCE TO WORK IN THE NEW CYCLE. The T.S. was meant to be the corner- stone of the future religions of humanity. To accomplish this object those who lead must leave aside their weak predilections for the forms and ceremonies of any particular creed and show themselves to be true Theosophists both in inner thoughts and outward observance. The greatest of your trials is yet to come. We watch over you but you must put forth all your strength. K.H. ------------------------------------------- PS: In 1900 a B. W. Mantri of India, wrote a letter to Annie Besant, then in England, dated August 22. When A.B. opened it she found on its back some lines in the well-known blue pencilling of the MASTER K. H. In the volume published in 1919 by the Theosophical Publishing House of Adyar this letter and the blue penciled lines are reproduced and are included in all subsequent reprintings. (Letter 46, p.99. Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, 4th, 5th, 6th edition.) In the 1948 printing Mr. C. Jinarajadasa adds some historical comments and includes also some letters newly found and never before printed from K.H. to Laura Holloway. H.P.B., and Olcott. The penciled lines from K.H. To Mrs. Besant in the 1900 letter, however, were never published in completeness, as ellipses dots indicate, the editors omitting certain lines they considered too private for public reading. The following now is the complete Letter, earlier omissions being indicated in bold letters. The earnest student will study these omissions which in context reveal the Master's fuller and clear advise. The time indeed may be propitious for their disclosure. The first sentence evidently has reference to Mr. B. K. Mantri. --Ed. [Excerpted from The Eclectic Theosophist, No. 101, September/October 1987] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 26 02:03:07 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 776 Message-ID: <199612260703.CAA02061@envirolink.org> April Clanton writes: > >Merry christmas everyone. Sending warm thoughts and good wishes to all, >you to Tom R. May you all have a very happy Christmas day and may >all you and yours have a safe holiday. > >April Joy --- The Triaist Merry Christmas! Is Joy your middle name then? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 26 02:05:08 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Theosophical Friends Message-ID: <199612260705.CAA02161@envirolink.org> Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >John, >Please don't start that First Object fight again. :) > >Chuck the Heretic mwahahaha. Ain't I a stinker? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 26 02:09:29 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: "Religious" Theosophists. Message-ID: <199612260709.CAA02283@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >It is impossible not to consider one's own ideas as superior, since, if the >ideas of others were regarded as superior, those ideas would automatically >be adopted as one's own. If I did not consider Theosophy to be superior to >Christianity, I would be a Christian, not a Theosophist. Is it not possible to be a Christian Theosophist? Or perhaps such a person would be better "labeled" as a theosophical Christian. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 07:36:43 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199612261337.IAA13348@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC > Many more miles to the west, I just woke up here in western > Montana - to around 5 feet of snow ... no part of the car parked in front > of my house is visible, it just looks like the bottom ball of a *really* > big snowman. My next door neighbor just walked past my house towards the > store - in her snowshoes. By god its gonna be a *fun* Christmas (-:). > Yes, and it was real riot driving home from my relative's house on the night of Christmas Day with a few inches of the white stuff already down and single digit temperatures. I was gripping the wheel and taking a deep breath at every stop sign and light. The two suburbs I had to drive through had no plows or salting. Guess they thought we'd just tough it out or stay home. Once I crossed the border line of Chicago, I breathed a sigh of relief. The streets were clear and salty. One of da Mayor's finest Street and Sanitation trucks even passed me by. Five feet of snow? If I stood on the ground, there'd only three inches off the top my head in plain view. : -) This post is also a test. Have those @#$%&* robots kicked me off this list again? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Dec 26 09:30:59 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Karma: law? Message-ID: <199612261430.JAA15196@envirolink.org> Michael writes: >Yes, I quite agree being subject to collective Karma - if you can call it so >- but I wonder whether such a thing as a personal law of retribution exists >for one's own deeds. Karma as a law of cause and effect for the individual >is a typical reflection of the way of thinking in the second half of the >past century, to assume that physical laws also apply to laws of behaviour. > >I have not seen any proof in the lives of people that there is any form of >equal reward or punishment for one's acts. Of course I cannot oversee a >chain of reincarnations of a particular person, but that is a subject for >another debate. Just a hypothesis, a new, unresearched or thought-out idea: Perhaps each one of us has a "karmic meter" within us which reacts somewhat directly with the karmic pool. I.e. if your "karmic meter" leans toward the negative, then you would be more likely to attract negative karma. If it leaned toward the positive, etc. Another possibilty, (but not a probability IMO), is that there is now outwieghing of negative to positive, but rather, the negative is simply a side-effect of positive. You may drop one hundred dollars whereas someone else picks it up. The latter person had good karma, whereas you seemed to have recieved bad karma. Does Newton's third law apply to karma?:) >>I'm not sure, but your understanding of karma seems much like my own. You >>seemed to disagree with it, and I'm grateful for your opinion, but after >>reading your post, I'm still not quite sure about what aspect of it you >>disagree with... > >see above: the reward/retribution aspect. >I wonder is whether there is such a thing as retribution that Karma is >usually associated with, or that there is an outside agency or law which >passes judgement, punishing one for one's deeds. Perhaps it is an "inside agency". The higher self (Atman/Buddhi/Manas?) may punish you for your "sins". Surely the higher self would know how karma does it's work, and perhaps it can manipulate itself so that karma (good or bad) would be attracted to it's manifestation - us. >For example the person who causes misery to other beings will punish himself >ultimately.. The person doing so will first of all steep and chain himself >further to a level in which he will attract like-minded souls and suffer at >one point or another from their behaviour (although he will often not >realize the quality of his and their lives then). >Secondly, if he (or she!) wants to pull himself as a Baron von Muenchausen >by his hairs out of his pit he will find that he can only cut himself loose >by (non-physical) dying on that level in order to move upward (By the same >reasoning: there must be pleasure in sinking - involution). >To die during one's life on one level in order to start functioning on >another implies a battle with one's own inert nature, and/or to seek >spiritual interference, for instance by means of prayer. Definitely a possibility. If one's nature is to "involve" then involution would assuredly be pleasureable. However, it is my understanding that there are such involutors who, eventually, severe(sp?) their atmic tie with the Absolute, and become lost souls. (G. de Purucker) >It connects with what Kym wrote: >> Yet, again, I am aware that, according to most doctrine, a >>sign you are on the "up-swing" is when you disentangle yourself from earthly >>beings and things - concentrating on the inward, on perfecting yourself, on >>becoming undisturbed. > >that disentanglement causes hardship - falling over and picking oneself up >again. The harder, the more one has become part of a way of life and delight >in it.. > >Kym also wrote: >>I guess the "Gods" did hanker for suffering since we hankered for the >>"material" which is apparently the reason we got our "spirit/soul" dragged >>"down here" in the first place. > >With "Gods" I meant actually "we". I do not know what came first hankering >for a an unknown experience of delight versus suffering in a material >mechanical world yet to be created, or a craving for sinking into the >material world: involution. One implies the other. This is my understanding of the situation. Up until we became humans, we were not self-conscious entities. We had "swabhava", and still do, which could be defined as a "habit" or "nature". Being unself-concious, we had no control over our swabhavas which were to manifest ourselves and sink into matter. After becoming self-conscious we evolved a "free will", and were able to choose whether or not to follow our natures. Our swabhava, as I understand it, are now yearning "upwards" towards the spirit once again. However, being self-conscious, we can choose to"descend" into matter, eventually ending up in what the "masters" call the eighth sphere. "Avichi Nirvana". Those who have reached A.N. lose their atmic link and become lost souls. "Lost", defined by them as "selfish and materialistic". Therefore, "universally" evil. >Michael >Michael >Amsterdam, Netherlands >http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html Interesting debate. I'm learning already.:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:49:00 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: T-bonics Message-ID: <19961226144857.AAA22967@LOCALNAME> At 09:21 PM 12/25/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Tom wrote: >>At 04:55 AM 12/25/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >>>Tom Robertson writes: >>>>The final, official definition of Theosophy is "the dogmatic >>>>creed that says that a spirit of brotherhood is the ideal." >>> >>I have rarely seen such a profound demonstration of "the voice of the >>silence." To show her complete acquiescence in my final definition of >>"Theosophy" simply by not saying anything is a stroke of genius on Kym's part. >Your shot over my bow has not gone unnoticed; along with your admittedly >artful catch of my technical erratum I find this to be very disappointing. Here I thought I had discovered a ground-breaking advance in human ingenuity, and you are saying it was mere "technical erratum," whatever that is. >- you were also clever enough to do it where it would appear on a day when retribution >is supposed to be at its ebb. I'm impressed. My timing _was_ impeccable, wasn't it. I have been planning this for months. >However, being the refined and gentle woman I am, My keen intuition tells me that you and I have slightly different definitions of the words "refined" and "gentle." >I must warn you that when these 'goodwill toward MEN' days have passed You feminists should quit while you are ahead. Men always treat women like queens. Will you not be satisfied until all "goodwill towards MEN" days are abolished? >- I plan on morphing back into the decorum of Scorpio. That you and I are both Scorpios convinces me once and for all that there is no validity to astrology. >And I am sure you will again venture into hazardous territory. With you around, I am sure I could not find unhazardous territory. >So I can only say. . .be afraid, be very afraid. There is nothing you could do to me that I haven't enjoyed having others do even more of. >Yet, somehow, Tom R., I still wish you a Merry Christmas - imagine that. You can now truthfully say that you can forgive anyone for anything. >:-) :( From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:28:13 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Karma: law? Message-ID: <19961226182811.AAA10790@LOCALNAME> At 02:41 PM 12/26/96 +0000, John Straughn wrote: >Michael writes: >>Yes, I quite agree being subject to collective Karma Collective karma relates to individual karma in the same way that the results of a coin flip relate to the probability of the coin flip. Collective karma tends to eventually even out for all individuals. >>- but I wonder whether such a thing as a personal law of retribution exists >>for one's own deeds. I like how Annie Besant emphasized how karma affects one's character more than she emphasized how it affects one's circumstances in her little book about karma. >Just a hypothesis, a new, unresearched or thought-out idea: Perhaps each one >of us has a "karmic meter" within us which reacts somewhat directly with the >karmic pool. I.e. if your "karmic meter" leans toward the negative, then you >would be more likely to attract negative karma. If it leaned toward the >positive, etc. That karma deals in probabilities and tendencies like this strikes me as much more likely than that it ties particular cirumstances to particular acts. >The higher self (Atman/Buddhi/Manas?) may >punish you for your "sins". Surely the higher self would know how karma does >it's work, and perhaps it can manipulate itself so that karma (good or bad) >would be attracted to it's manifestation - us. I have never understood why the "higher self" is referred to as both being a part of the individual and as acting on the individual. If it knows something that I do not know, then it is not me. >it is my understanding that there >are such involutors who, eventually, severe(sp?) their atmic tie with the >Absolute, and become lost souls. (G. de Purucker) I do not see how it is possible for anything to be separate from something that is all-encompassing. >being self-conscious, we can choose to"descend" into matter, eventually ending up in >what the "masters" call the eighth sphere. "Avichi Nirvana". Those who have >reached A.N. lose their atmic link and become lost souls. "Lost", defined by >them as "selfish and materialistic". Therefore, "universally" evil. How long do these lost souls stay that way, or are they annihilated without ever recovering? I remember a phrase from "The Mahatma Letters" which said that some souls undergo misery and torment for a manvantara, but I cannot remember to whom it was referring. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:49:30 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <19961226184928.AAA17250@LOCALNAME> At 01:41 AM 12/26/96 +0000, "John E. Mead" wrote: > >The agreement each member makes when joining the society >is to (conceptually) accept the three objects. > >a couple points: > >1. Hitler's acts violated these objects. If this is being said because he had people killed, and it is acknowledged that killing is not always wrong, then this is debatable. If this is being said because he had the idea that Germans were of the inherently superior master race, and that that idea is untheosophical, it contradicts what you said later. >2. Paul Johnson has not violated these objects. I do not know enough about his book about the identity of HPB's Masters to believe it violates anything, and I am not commenting about Paul in particular at all, but anyone who has ever acted in any spirit less than one of pure brotherhood has violated at least one of the three objects. There is not that great of a difference between Hitler and everyone else. All human beings are mixtures of good and evil. >(a very bad comparison) > >it is my experience that to *want to* define a line >to demarcate ideas as "un-theosophical" is *itself* untheosophical. If the word "untheosophical" cannot be defined, it should not be used. >i.e. we should not talk about *where* the line should be >drawn ... but ... > >*why* would one even *WANT* to?? This would only be true if Theosophy does not have to do with ideas at all, which may depend on what is meant by the word "idea." Are you saying that the only dogmatic statement that Theosophy makes is that dogmatism is untheosophical? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:04:27 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: 1900 Letter from Master K.H. Message-ID: <19961226190424.AAA21814@LOCALNAME> At 01:51 AM 12/26/96 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > >I am re-posting the famous 1900 Letter from Master K.H. It appears that as >far as TS is concerned, it is relevant today as it was relevant in 1900. >Many here has seen this letter and those who have not seen it may find it >interesting. > >============================================= > > THE 1900 LETTER > The T.S. and its members are slowly > manufacturing a creed. If the 3 objects are not creeds, what is the definition of a creed? Whoever reads this letter considers it to have at least potential authority. Even if all K. H. ever said was to have no authority, it requires giving authority to what he said in order to learn from him that one should have no authority. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:47:58 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961226144758_811808717@emout01.mail.aol.com> Ann, We got about an inch and a half here last night and a another half inch this morning, but the plows were going back and forth in front of the house all evening. There isn't a snowflake on the streets of Franklin Park. Of course the fact that the town mayor lives two blocks due east doesn't hurt. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:51:54 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: "Religious" Theosophists. Message-ID: <961226145153_677020019@emout02.mail.aol.com> I would think it depends on the variety of christian. One could certainly not be a fundamentalist and be a theosophist, but there would be little problem with most of the mainline denominations. We have a lot of people who consider themselves to be both and it confuses the hell out of the rest of us. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:33:22 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: TS - A view from International President Message-ID: This is a repost of my post some time back. It may be of interest some newbees. Hi I saw the following in the TS Homepage setup by Rodolfo Don at http://www.garlic.com/~rdon/MyPage.html which I thought might interest some who may not have seen the following article by the International President. MKRamdoss ===================== Why the Theosophical Society? Reproduced from "The Theosophist", (On the Watch-Tower), July 1996 issue. Everyone who applies for membership of the TS must be in sympathy with the declared Objects of the Society, as the application form itself makes clear. One can surely expect that, when subscribing to the Society's objects, more specifically to the universal brotherhood it seeks to bring about in the world, the applicant pays proper attention to what the Society stands for, and that joining the TS is not entirely a careless or insincere act. It is therefore surprising when, after some years of membership, someone says that he or she joined the Society not in order to support the Objects, but for some other reason; or still worse, holds the view that the Objects should be quite other than what they are. If the Objects were to be changed, then the Society would not be the Theosophical Society, but something else. In some countries, even the legal status of the Society would be seriously affected. The Inner Founders of the Society, the Teachers of H.P. Blavatsky and H.S. Olcott, who inspired them and brought them together in America, were very clear about what the Society should stand for, as evidenced by the letters which They were gracious enough to write. In 1880, addressing Sinnett, KH wrote (ML 3rd ed., letter 2): The Chiefs want a 'brotherhood of humanity', a real Universal Fraternity started; an institution which would make itself known throughout the world and arrest the attention of the highest minds. Again and again their intention had to be emphasized because the correspondent was unable to grasp its importance and wanted to gain knowledge from the Teachers, for knowledge gained brings a certain immediate satisfaction, while toiling for universal brotherhood is hard and seemingly less rewarding. The search for knowledge may become a selfish undertaking, and hence the note of admonishment: 'It is he alone who has the love of humanity at heart, who is capable of grasping the idea of a regenerating practical Brotherhood, who is entitled to the possession of our secrets.' (Letter 38) Because the words of the Mahatmas did not go home, HPB reminded Sinnett (Letter 138): 'You cannot have forgotten what I told you repeatedly at Simla and what the Master KH wrote to you himself, namely that the TS is part of a Universal Brotherhood...' It is very probable that for those whose vision is far seeing, and for whom past, present and future are like an open book, humanity's further descent morally and spiritually was already known. They may have foreseen that bitter conflicts and ruthlessly selfish activities would trouble the world for a long time to come. The emphasis on brotherhood could not but be considered as the potent remedy which they wanted to administer to humanity in the mass, which they declared was their paramount concern. Humanity today has its back to the wall. It will either survive by realizing that brotherhood and cooperation are unavoidable norms for human growth, or civilization will perish as a result of the 'progress' that includes possession of deadly weapons, poisoning of the environment, and other irresponsible acts. As the resources of the earth decrease and competition becomes more intense, individual as well as group selfishness become more aggressive than ever, and a twisted philosophy is being developed to support selfish aims. Recently some books have been published promoting racist ideas under the guise of science. Genetic engineering is a tool that these 'scientific racists' could put to use to accomplish their designs. IQ tests are also being conveniently manipulated to prove their theories about racial superiority. But the basic question is: What is real intelligence? Those who believe that compassion, sympathy and self-sacrifice have nothing to do with intelligent living could themselves be regarded as deficient in IQ. If this basic point is examined and defined without prejudice. Are the smart people with high IQs creating a better world, or is it getting worse? Does intelligence consist in generating widespread violence, corruption and insecurity, which is happening everywhere today? Amenesty International reports that the present century has surpassed every other age in torturing people. A recent report in The Guardian Weekly (2 June '96) says the United States budget for erecting prisons has risen from 2 to 10 percent. Out of every 100,000 Americans, 565 are behind bars. Running prisons has become a sort of industry with consultants and private companies having a hand in organizing and supervising. This may soon happen in many other places. Therefore, working for cooperation, trust and brotherly relations at the individual, national and every other level is vital for humanity. The Theosophical Society has by no means an obsolete aim. It must propagate universal brotherhood without distinction of race, religion and so forth, and also show by example that selfishness can be replaced by mutual trust and sympathy to the great advantage of all. The arguments in favor of unity are obvious. Even ordinary people can now see that if we proceed along the present direction of ruthless selfishness, there will be increasing difficulties. Progressive minds are viewing life as a whole. It is not necessary in the present context to acquire a deep philosophical insight, let alone wisdom, in order to realize that brotherhood is the only sane course and there is no other alternative. Lodge Work Some TS Lodges, especially those which are in theosophically remote areas, tend to center their work on whatever their own small membership finds interesting. Lodges and groups within our Society do have the freedom to work on themes of particular interest to them, and carry on activities which are to their liking, but the freedom must be exercised within the framework of the Society's character and structure. Were each unit to function without regard to the whole, the Society would not exist as a worldwide body, a globally spread family of harmoniously minded members. Behind every foolish act of human beings is some kind of philosophical assumption. The aggressive, competitive attitudes prevalent today have their roots in the assumption that there is nothing beyond the material world and, as material things appear to be separate from each other, the underlying philosophy encourages promoting the interest of the particular at the expense of the whole. Therefore members must probe deeply and discover how the human mind fragments life and brings about inequality and continual strife; also that the only philosophy which illumines the whole field of human activity and inundates it with happiness is the holistic one. Using words like unity or wholeness is one thing, but in order to grasp their deep meaning, and know how to apply the newly acquired perspectives to the different aspects of the human condition, we need not only a thoughtful, but a brotherly attitude. Let us remember that although we may have entered the Society for a variety of reasons, we should not remain in it without applying ourselves in a direction which will change world-thought by sweeping away the cobwebs of prejudice and suspicion. Radha Burnier Mrs Radha Burnier is current International President of the Theosophical Society. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:06:46 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: "Religious" Theosophists. Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > I would think it depends on the variety of christian. One could certainly > not be a fundamentalist and be a theosophist, but there would be little > problem with most of the mainline denominations. We have a lot of people who > consider themselves to be both and it confuses the hell out of the rest of > us. I personally see no contradiction at all. One of HPB's most significant claims was that the world's religions were all outer forms or expressions of a central and universal body of knowledge - the picure I get is one of a group of buildings arranged in a circle ... each building a religion with an "outer" and "inner" chamber - its exoteric and esoteric components - and the inner chamber of all of them containing doors that open into a common central courtyard. In fact she seemed to consider one of the chief purposes of the TS to be the reconciliation of the world's religions, the ending of wars and conflicts between them, by entering a process in which their common source might be discovered through the study of comparative religion. Virtually every religion, IMO, contains somewhere within it a doorway .... the chief problem being that they almost all, at the institutional level, claim to have the *only* doorway, to possess the truth that is above all other truths. The thing that confuses the hell out of *me* is the fact that the TS, that was formed in part to repair the immense damage caused by that nasty belief ... seems increasingly poised to *adopt* the sucker. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:11:34 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: "Religious" Theosophists. Message-ID: <199612262329.SAA13872@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > Tom Robertson writes: > >It is impossible not to consider one's own ideas as superior, since, if the > >ideas of others were regarded as superior, those ideas would automatically > >be adopted as one's own. If I did not consider Theosophy to be superior to > >Christianity, I would be a Christian, not a Theosophist. > > Is it not possible to be a Christian Theosophist? Or perhaps such a person > would be better "labeled" as a theosophical Christian. I find this discussion hard to discern. It is my understanding that one can be of any religion or belief system and still be part of TS. My husband was once told there were even theosophical athiests. One can follow one's own path, yet gain from theosophy and the study of comparative religion. Olcott has had many different speakers from many different paths. Yoga, Buddhism, Christianity, Gnosticism and too numerous to mention. At the start of the Annual Meeting there is always the recitation of prayers of blessing from different religions and spiritual sources. As for looking for labels, I think one labels oneself according to the crowd one may hanging out with. -AEB -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:59:46 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199612262329.SAA13853@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > Date: Thursday, December 26, 1996 1:50 PM > > Ann, > > We got about an inch and a half here last night and a another half inch this > morning, but the plows were going back and forth in front of the house all > evening. There isn't a snowflake on the streets of Franklin Park. > Of course the fact that the town mayor lives two blocks due east doesn't > hurt. > Gee, maybe I should have driven past the mayor's houses in Berwyn and Oak Park, IL, Christimas night. I hear it will be 50 degree by Saturday. Good excuse to visit Olcott. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 17:13:53 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: 1900 Letter from Master K.H. Message-ID: <199612262330.SAA13893@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > >============================================= > > > > THE 1900 LETTER > > > The T.S. and its members are slowly > > manufacturing a creed. > > If the 3 objects are not creeds, what is the definition of a creed? > creed (krêd) noun 1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith. 2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions. [Middle English crede, from Old English crêda, from Latin crêdo, I believe. See CREDO.] — creed¹al (krêd¹l) adjective -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:44:35 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <199612270144.SAA13481@snowden.micron.net> John wrote: >> >>The agreement each member makes when joining the society >>is to (conceptually) accept the three objects. >> >>a couple points: >> >>1. Hitler's acts violated these objects. I do not see how Hitler's acts or motives are even relevant to this discussion. The Three Declared Objects have to do with the actions of the Theosophical Society as a group - not individuals. How could one, as an individual, "do" or violate the Objects? Tom wrote: >If this is being said because he had people killed, and it is acknowledged >that killing is not always wrong, then this is debatable. Everything is debatable; however, to use John's term, it is the acceptance of the 'concept' that killing is wrong which governs the world. If you want to search the records of the Third Reich and find a person who may have deserved to die, and therefore help exonerate Hitler and his cronies - go ahead. But I feel quite comfortable making the blanket statement that what Hitler did was wrong. >I do not know enough about his book about the identity of HPB's Masters to >believe it violates anything, and I am not commenting about Paul in >particular at all, but anyone who has ever acted in any spirit less than one >of pure brotherhood has violated at least one of the three objects. It seems you are declaring that anyone who claims that the Theosophical Society is anything but sacred may be guilty of the crime of acting "in any spirit less than one of pure brotherhood." I tire of the assumption that it is those who dare to point out the spiritual nakedness of supposed leaders as being the ones who are causing the discord. >If the word "untheosophical" cannot be defined, it should not be used. Can one truly define the word 'love?' Can one truly define the word 'brotherhood?' I say they cannot - does this mean they shouldn't be used? Your logic is flawed. However, I'm all for the term 'brotherhood' to be tossed in the toidy. >This would only be true if Theosophy does not have to do with ideas at all, >which may depend on what is meant by the word "idea." Are you saying that >the only dogmatic statement that Theosophy makes is that dogmatism is >untheosophical? Theosophy has declared a dogma by the writing and acceptance of the Three Declared Objects and The Theosophical World View; although, in the World View, it boldly declares it does not. Theosophy, the Theosophical Society, and those who call themselves Theosophists certainly want us to accept the dogma of "brotherhood." It seems, especially among those who call themselves intellectuals, that to declare the embracing of a dogma is to somehow suggest you do not possess an independent nature. We all have dogmas (beliefs, personal creeds, arrogant opinions) and there's nothing wrong with it. To completely espouse the opposite would make us nothing but a bunch of namby-pamby's. One can still have a dogma, and be open to change, improvement, and learning - which in reality, is simply the acceptance of other dogmas. All our life is spent picking and choosing dogmas - I don't see how it is possible to live dogma-less. The argument is not whether the Society has a dogma but rather that it has the "right" one. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 02:43:12 +0000 From: Tom Robertson Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <19961227024309.AAA14467@LOCALNAME> At 01:51 AM 12/27/96 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >The Three Declared Objects have to do with the actions of the >Theosophical Society as a group - not individuals. How could one, as an >individual, "do" or violate the Objects? It is only individuals who can uphold or violate the Objects. You are missing the trees by focusing on the forest. >>If the word "untheosophical" cannot be defined, it should not be used. > >Can one truly define the word 'love?' Can one truly define the word >'brotherhood?' I say they cannot - does this mean they shouldn't be used? >Your logic is flawed. You are probably right about this, since it takes common experience, but not necessarily a logical definition, for certain words to be understood. Other intuitive concepts such as "justice," "beauty," and "goodness" could be added to your list. It was untheosophical of me to be illogical. >However, I'm all for the term 'brotherhood' to be tossed in the toidy. What alternative do you suggest? >Theosophy has declared a dogma by the writing and acceptance of the Three >Declared Objects and The Theosophical World View; although, in the World >View, it boldly declares it does not. Theosophy, the Theosophical Society, >and those who call themselves Theosophists certainly want us to accept the >dogma of "brotherhood." > >It seems, especially among those who call themselves intellectuals, that to >declare the embracing of a dogma is to somehow suggest you do not possess an >independent nature. We all have dogmas (beliefs, personal creeds, arrogant >opinions) and there's nothing wrong with it. To completely espouse the >opposite would make us nothing but a bunch of namby-pamby's. One can still >have a dogma, and be open to change, improvement, and learning - which in >reality, is simply the acceptance of other dogmas. All our life is spent >picking and choosing dogmas - I don't see how it is possible to live >dogma-less. The argument is not whether the Society has a dogma but rather >that it has the "right" one. What she said, but more of it. As competition would be meaningless if winning were not possible, so would the search for truth be meaningless if there were no truth to be found. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:32:11 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961227033211.0068717c@mail.eden.com> At 09:45 PM 12/26/96 -0500, Tom Robertson wrote: >What she said, but more of it. As competition would be meaningless if >winning were not possible, so would the search for truth be meaningless if >there were no truth to be found. This reminds me of the "Truth is a Pathless Land". May be it is time to repost. This may give some thing to discuss and think about. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:30:11 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Karma: law? Message-ID: <01BBF3AD.A2DCED20@rvik-ppp-216.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF3AD.A2DCED20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi there. I have been reading, and reading, but now it's time to say something, - = I think! I will start from a point of familiarity, namely the subject of karma. John Straughn wrote: Just a hypothesis, a new, unresearched or thought-out idea: Perhaps = each one=20 of us has a "karmic meter" within us which reacts somewhat directly with = the=20 karmic pool. I.e. if your "karmic meter" leans toward the negative, = then you=20 would be more likely to attract negative karma. If it leaned toward the = positive, etc. Another possibilty, (but not a probability IMO), is that = there=20 is now outwieghing of negative to positive, but rather, the negative is = simply=20 a side-effect of positive. You may drop one hundred dollars whereas = someone=20 else picks it up. The latter person had good karma, whereas you seemed = to=20 have recieved bad karma. Does Newton's third law apply to karma?:) Yes John. According to the traditional view, Newton's third law is an = "aspect" of the universal law of karma. For decades karma and reincarnation has been part of my world-view. We = must remember that karma has another side of the coin, namely = reincarnation, and the individual progressive evolution of = "consciousness" that comes with it. I have been looking at this "universal law" from many angles and would = like to try explaining my present favorite hypothesis. Please take it as = it is, a play with ideas (based on a very personal insight). To explain my "model", I will start with a simple model of the human = Psyche drawn by the known Italian psychologist Assagioli.=20 Think of (or draw) three concentric circles. The innermost area = represents the ordinary conscious state of our daily life. Everything = conscious is part of it.=20 The next space (between the two innermost circles) represents what we = call the "subconscious" i.e. the part of our personality that we are = unconscious of. Note that there will bee constant flow of memories, = emotions etc. flowing over the boundaries of the conscious, and at night = the innermost area will be wiped off altogether.=20 Outside the Unconscious (and a part of it), inside the outermost circle, = lies the superconscious, the core of our individual being, the higher = self, the seed of God - call it what you like.=20 But there is still an infinite area left on that plane of consciousness = - namely the collective consciousness, the real ocean of consciousness, = that I would like to call "the Divine Consciousness or God. Thus we are just some bubbles in the ocean of life, but we are also the = ocean, if we only take all boundaries away! Well. By now you must all have asked yourself: "What on earth has this = to do with Karma?" My model: Individual karma is purely psychological. In the Bible it says, (as far as I remember): The sin came into being = when Man ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of right and = wrong. My version: THE Individual soul came into being as a separate karmic = entity when in his evolution it understood the thin line between Right = and Wrong. At that time it also encountered the "Conscience", the guilt, = the (mostly unconscious) knowledge of having hurt another being, and = thereby committed Sin. It has left a scar in our Psyche all the time = since.=20 But still being stupid, man keeps on committing sins and chooses to = ignore or explain away the guilt, by putting it away into the = unconscious. There it accumulates over eons of time, now termed = complexes, phobias, etc. by the modern psychologists. This is our = accumulated karma, the unconscious knowledge of misdeeds (and the good = deeds too), that bind individuals together, even beyond incarnations.=20 The whole process is ever known by the higher self, which governs our = lives from incarnation to another, so that we shall finally learn the = trick - the golden rule - and come to the understanding of the unity of = ALL life, - the fact that we are all parts of ONE consciousness. The practice of undoing karma is based on understanding the law, and, = purifying our unconscious, which can only be done if we encounter and = accept as part of us, the whole content of our subconscious. We have to = STOP projecting our guilt, our wrath, our pain and sorrow on the = external world, and accept it as our own psychological "stuff".=20 If someone hits me or hurts me in any way, it is MY karma. He is only a = (free-willing) servant of my own higher Self, bringing a message of = love, and trying to bring a necessary correction to my psyche. The inner = and the outer are just two sides of the same thing, - my unconscious.=20 If I offer the other cheek I have understood the message. If I hit back = I have created another karmic debt, and earned nothing but the hurt from = the blow. Moreover. If I really take to the "spring cleaning" of the psyche, the = clouds of ignorance that the subconscious "hide and seek" has become, = will gradually get thinner and allow the glorious light of the overself, = the mystical experience of unity, to pour into our daily conscious = life, thereby bringing the truly spiritual into the world of the matter. = This is the only way of doing it - we are the only instruments that God = has got, being the crown of the earthly life - the kingdom of God in = Matter! The main thing is that it's all under control - OUR control! I hope that you see my point. You don't have to accept it - like I said = - it's only a game of ideas.=20 Please forgive my lengthy monologue. Christmas greetings! Einar from Iceland. ----------------------------------------------------- Let's change the world for the better by each changing ourselves - TOGETHER! ----------------------------------------------------- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF3AD.A2DCED20 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjkEAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADGy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAEAAAAFJFOiBLYXJtYTogbGF3PwC6BAEFgAMA DgAAAMwHDAAbAAMAHgALAAUAKwEBIIADAA4AAADMBwwAGwAAADsAJQAFAF8BAQmAAQAhAAAANEE0 NzZBRTQ3RjVGRDAxMUExMEQ0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAA5gYBA5AGALAOAAASAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYA AAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkAQLXnQ6bzuwEeAHAAAQAAABAAAABSRTogS2FybWE6IGxh dz8AAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAbvzpkPe5GpHS19/EdChDURFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAA AAAeAB8MAQAAABIAAABhbm5hc2JAaXNtZW5udC5pcwAAAAMABhC+z3fNAwAHELMRAAAeAAgQAQAA AGUAAABISVRIRVJFSUhBVkVCRUVOUkVBRElORyxBTkRSRUFESU5HLEJVVE5PV0lUU1RJTUVUT1NB WVNPTUVUSElORywtSVRISU5LSVdJTExTVEFSVEZST01BUE9JTlRPRkZBTUlMSUFSAAAAAAIBCRAB AAAAPw0AADsNAADMGAAATFpGdfgN6dr/AAoBDwIVAqgF6wKDAFAC8gkCAGNoCsBzZXQyNwYABsMC gzIDxQIAcHJCcRHic3RlbQKDM7cC5AcTAoM0EswUxX0KgD8IzwnZAoAKgQ2xC2BuZzAxMDM5CvsV YjI0QCBIaSB0aASQZRIuCoVJIBGAdmUgSmIJ4SAXoGFkC4BnlCwgAHBkHKhidQVARG5vB+BpdCcE IHSDB3EbEG8gc2F5H1BrA3ARwGgc8y0b4R/ia/YhG4cD8GwDIBPACsAFQGMDUh0wIHBvC4AFQG9y ZiIgYW0DEAcwBRB0ynkdIG4jQGVsH4AbIbEfUHViagWQIuNrCsDPAMAbdgqLI3AzNg3wGhwISm9o A6BTdHJhtHVnKGF3A2AT0DomPz8nRxRRC/ITUClBJQFKdXMTwCJxaHkioBshAJBzzx0hHkAH0B0g dW4XoBGw/wrAEXAJgCLwBcAbIAhgKOAsdC0IYAVAaQ2wYTrYICBQBJARgHAEIBzA/xFwIvAtYCYm IwEsIBwBBCDFIoAiJWJpYyAfwQSQ7iIhcR/iMYJ3H/AwgRyx7yUABCAfojOwYQVAHOAXoP8lACRB MxIkYwqFMjUioAbwci4vwEkuG2AegCMQebsIYTIebBzABjEfMHcLEeskYy1gZzTgaRwwHSAbIdcD oDgBJiZ3CGBsHWAcYO8ykAWwHEAjcGskMx9ANOD/KKElATpWJVU3YSMQHpA5M38uUTmpCoUioACQ OpQRwGO9N1FBHlAbIkDiAJBiAxDdI8IoHhQsQiuRYgGgI2HjI8Ab4E1PKR0gBAAbEf804RsjJiZF AR5SLzED8Dpg/x/yIvI99x8xQPgeEiiwGyLvOtM96EUBAJBtC1AfgAqF9yKAAJANsC0NwST1QPY3 Ua5ZO1EAwB+AZANgcDCj7mgtsE3wLlFkBvALYBGg/zOhG0Ex0R+iMLkkMBGwIpBNMnBrBCA/MXVw N1FU/ySBC2ACQEJCBJAfoAOgEYD9HWBnNyAdYCVjHSBPhjtC/xGwE+A/oyYmHBM1MQiQHDBnPDFT UT6GRG8HlB8wbv8esh/wOeELYAfgMCBLAh8x8SVjPzopKY8qnyulCo+dGlhZB5EoQjdQQWMFof8c 4h8iJHIooRzgHuACIAdA/CB2CJAtgVgPHnEx4QOg/iIx0FLQJQAy8CMBJHItsL86oRGgYMFY8iU/ XORGBbH/BYEc0AeRZPMdNQuAZpAEoL86gVMTBCAcY10BIuNtNYHbBbA8IC1g8jdQVzxhLCL/F6AH gAbQQkFFM2b0McNCBf9L0mNmBaALgCPnZ5sdJCRy5wuAHOBg8GR1YMErkQnBf0KRHDFWoAbwHiBo MiMBIu8FoACAVoAIYHMtYAQQMvD/RTMFoAeCNaMekCW9G/oXMNxva0dCRVNFASJj6zLw/yIzA4Ef gBlBOUBikh1gO/TLPNJfs3IfgGV4C1NHQv9pgRNQLeEi0SMwcXAjoU5h+yyXN1BQOUFREQGQedE/ Mf8x0T8xLQQLUTWFL3IEIEMw/31RLmEDoCKAZBF7MVLjYMHXC4AAkC7xKSW9VB9AenXlaXIiBGJs Ih0gIWs1o39LskrxPGKD8WNmToADglC8c3kuMU3hWQADoGIkVPZrHlEDoEkBkCNxaOGHQq0XIWcE AAVAQQQQYYnQvQbwaTdQgg0goiLyKGZC/YexKRsRCdFtoWfAe5EFEP8ygFaALiB40TdQUiILgC1g /2UQQQAsQRyxHKF7VUUSbSH/X2IKwB+AckchwnwxIwE4Er5kC3AkQSNwTEA3UEWAkn8f45EpRQFp BnQxizg6Mni/BUBjAADQHEBDMBHAdxxy/1/zO/COuY31jMCPuTTDl0DvbaAHQAMgJHIiJLFyRzLw /4qgN6EkcmkGOBKA5kRiRTO/mkGPYS2hkTgjADdQTilB/0UqIYMcYZEjAZB7ohcwZKP/axF8AQeQ QXEEYGCCMEFBov+h4kdDZBEkYwbgTpEjkQeR/21HcmUdJDThAwAu8W+ljuv/oMUhcVLQLmEN0B0w QuBwwHcf0QSQir5PHiBs8yRyVf2e2Simw5TZRNIAgavVLzH/mEsdICNwB5EkdFLRphltdP88oZI1 b/kcYBzzhpOBoWzCnSQwZkm0VQGpgiBHU6F/IFCacz8xNMM7QjzSir5Cfx4hRYRKoh7gIaEDkQuA Zv96wXwxj2M5QAGAgDJFMwtR/zDBIwFySyBBJAkXETlAJQD/PkJyS0m0HLGGQY1wA5G7vl860jTh IWF5a5pzIiRyRP9wITDBCFC8CgWxtZGB/k6AuzORnmRqLCIfoh4BYgJg/weRM1GQY7/WkwId9J5V B0D/H6DH2EThIxCaQQIgJEJ9ov+agqT5WQAfcCDmXNVqcCGg/TdQQh+AHlI7QmqjmoIcEz8x0Dzw HWA4ArRyL7AiV/800lMRLgE1wTHCdrMfMU8A1TWUS1nTIiXMTR+Ag9P9L7BJcAhm9JSyCHAkMolY 95pxdF6XdEJCsIXRPzEfYf8tEa0ABCAjMEuRBCAb8Gr2/ikvsFIiAJADoGaQHwEiwe8fQLNTT3ID oE0DkZHyJHL9A1B1PzEiM1/0jRFjdYhy/TlAZKogIvIFEKdSeRMDYD8ZUBt21EJkEmCR2yFIRf/U 6h+gPBDbvzHTEbBdAZHy/zI1e5FEYtzDM1F2wnFoUaL/HVBS4R8wU6Ff8zNCI3AwwfWXFlLgZ1fh AxSwRWJFUv8e8n3iydIJ8AWgLbAywT+it5rSw6TskWWEISRyZ93w+0LgSbQojxIkQZ7JjMDfi/8c EUdCToAiAWx2s1VvdReg34gBc4EjUFKBHWBTC4A3UP+I0DGzuoNLsWfRx6I4Eoc1/5qGHuPbgY1w ire4QrkU3GT/E8BR0C9wHSADgjzwj8CfYf/bofQE+WOBcR0ziYFBALAy/ZfxZx5QsgJQ0YMlzLLu av+IAdYw+0R94v4S3BNjpHJH/45juLIsQV8whuA8EJHxn2H/pHJQMaWEB3Ej4R5hrxIuUetzgYXB eKLCcC7AQsAx0P9BdYgFg9Jn8IlLjlNFAUUBvzgSAihTtwCN33wjUHMNsP8XsKzl7nNTkgwU6IFE 0UUz/0LAHVFv+DmCqiRBcRwwh+H+ZTtADoNn13zxit6goYmR/1Eh4QCNcMRR5yNCQYh0iAX/tAsz tFOAZBEDUjghI3AcMP/Z4SJCZ7o9QkIEHSDJ45oU/nMxwCGhucGagZLhLgGXdf+NsYvwIFAMxDwg l2Hd4IXR/yBQ+/PG8gBX6EPqkUdFY6XjRHEjAUFMTMilG7QjMJ9coZ4KmoJpAqWDT07isP9yS8Tv ExI0MTJwbSNOkW3B/+Sw1ad/5x38sGJY8W9TBVH70FDIwHlHQzghnskVtmaQ/3HhyzI8UU8AMMHK xOyXprT/XzCPwH3zaQaxZhLUckFSkD97oZI1mxpqU1YTX8FTVPRPUEPSar3SKYXutTgSf+DwSWEz hF0A/dJnYVMAcv/hAGShl3SWYQbxYMFps6al/y2EfeT2QoiS1qua8fmwTDD+IrdOPwFQBovAkDHH AWZB//HyO8M0s2mR/iBE4X5S3QC6WVcmSEqDyyNnMCgXUD36cC2EcvLhjMBREHJ2r6GiaVSIkrQF U7SDYnwQ/3iwdkOiUYoybSOh8EjSb3P/ekBfhUJD9ZGWUBNikPQ1QP+90hg0eyL2k45pb2eu88ZI /5fSbPKlh4pAHVKTwiBSaYF/AMs6eHVAqaGkhWyU9rFl/4vwdUXoLUL19MFNEjuRVuH7G4F1RWO6 QfRSbHbltYYg/mLu8eqSGsLtIWyCHpLJEr+GlK2R3jfY8KIAZU1NsfH/pGJQhb9yy0ZfxZsAEzCT 078asXrSY1dHFLGFofB1DEH/lTL88qGgltGgFjBb7YCLwP9tETTjTnFjUGh0c4Iqobky/3DQZqCz Ee+xqiHpA0f2moH/BCLugqHwfBCRkrAQ6lJtRf+kYrR4aYC5ETkyenF3UO3z/yV0H2FvUB1yfICy cwBRkmj/kTjItPN2QkfehMHQg6BZsP+voK3wsxIANzaThlaG8PRB/6p4CCbH48sy//JyASXU2TH/ HNCeVW6ngXFq0ccAkCSnAf+1kl+SFjD+0uSDvVM1UcAD7zXD0XKS1Rula/LhK+AXgP+1ZYNh3RBt Usz9lhKG8Mez9/9zcfWt8Cfk4YSR6CMvY8fhALlQHNBPVVJ6lsz9/VGBb4DgoAS2wrURRtMl4e2V cVm20SvhJ/TyMZQ3SP8c0MITUYBDIEnwHMF5sz71vmfb0pUyhiDk0LdOUBqx/ybgF0CMUNcgvhFB ARqw8vBv0tDUYgQQibF1tzC3bEO/jPCJ4fogcsGNAftSc8z9dkWQ0hdESY1wu2HE1y3Xiv+MD40f LbdlTAYAedH/9rChoPEhbCiEgaSkBgDs8f+3ZQZRulAq8o8iKXW0cRcS0xzQMgBHReKRUsz2jT8f lU+WX5aAt4D9slxmNPmX8HMymBATMezwIPG3ZQp9t2AAmbAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzCg YkM7kfO7AUAACDCgYkM7kfO7AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAA8tc= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BBF3AD.A2DCED20-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:25:53 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: "Religious" Theosophists. Message-ID: <961226232553_237174350@emout19.mail.aol.com> Ann, Very true, we have them all, from Muslims to Chaos Magicians. And while I have never found any ideas superior to my own, the ones in Theosophy at least come closest to agreeing with me. (love to see the looks on certain faces with that one!) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:28:31 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961226232829_642726741@emout14.mail.aol.com> Ann, I think Oak Park has a local ordnance requiring all citizens to shovel the snow in the street in front of their house and prescribes flogging for those who fail to do so. Oak Park, is of course the worlds weirdest police state and representatives from Singapore make annual pilgrimages to it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:30:50 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <961226233049_1620793564@emout19.mail.aol.com> As a very wise Roman governor once asked a notorious criminal, "What is truth?" Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:23:02 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: 1900 Letter from Master K.H. Message-ID: <32C35D36.7E37@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > > I am re-posting the famous 1900 Letter from Master K.H. It appears that as > far as TS is concerned, it is relevant today as it was relevant in 1900. When John Algeo gave a talk at the N.Y.T.S. recently, it fell upon me to give the informal meeting that we have first (it was not by design; John changed his schedule AFTER I was scheduled to do that particular day). My topic, approved in advance by John (there was no request to do so; as a matter of habit I always clear the informal talk with whomever is giving the main talk, regardless) was the 1900 letter. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:33:13 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <32C35F99.37F2@sprynet.com> Let me give you all a practical problem, and tell me how you would solve it (I will ignore any messages on the topic of how you would NOT solve it). The New York Theosophical Society has property that was bought by generous donations of past members to promote Theosophy in New York City, as well as indirectly through the Kern Foundation (who provided the start-up capital for our Bookshop, which largely supports the Lodge). Some underhanded, well-organized group (perhaps the Scientologists) realize that, currently, the NYTS has possibly a million dollars or more (present value) in real property, and only a couple of hundred members. This group a couple of hundred of their members to join en masse, with the purpose in mind of voting themselves in during a Presidential election year, and, with the majority of the Board, transferring all the TS property to their organization. The Objects of the TS are sufficiently vague as to keep the taz people happy. Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you do to keep something like this from happening? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:52:49 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Let me give you all a practical problem, and tell me how you would > solve it (I will ignore any messages on the topic of how you would NOT > solve it). > The New York Theosophical Society has property that was bought by > generous donations of past members to promote Theosophy in New York > City, as well as indirectly through the Kern Foundation (who provided > the start-up capital for our Bookshop, which largely supports the > Lodge). > Some underhanded, well-organized group (perhaps the Scientologists) > realize that, currently, the NYTS has possibly a million dollars or more > (present value) in real property, and only a couple of hundred members. > This group a couple of hundred of their members to join en masse, with > the purpose in mind of voting themselves in during a Presidential > election year, and, with the majority of the Board, transferring all the > TS property to their organization. The Objects of the TS are > sufficiently vague as to keep the taz people happy. > > Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you > do to keep something like this from happening? > > Bart Lidofsky Are there any lawyers on theos-l who can have a first crack at the above? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 00:03:14 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theosophy in Iceland Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961227060314.0067cbf8@mail.eden.com> In the current issue of American Theosophist, there is an article "Theosophy in Iceland" by Einar Adalsteinsson. Two things caught my attention. In late 1970s they had 600 members in a population of 250,000. This is remarkable. I live in a San Antonio which has a million population. The lodge membership is around 20. Dallas, which has a much larger population, has perhaps less membership. The Icelandic Lodges must be doing something right. May be TSA Lodges can benefit from Icelandic experience. The second thing which I liked was the closing sentence: We can change the world only by changing ourselves. I asked myself a question, can I change myself? What kind of change I can and should make? I am yet to answer the question. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:33:42 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: higher egos and lost souls Message-ID: <32C37BA9.844@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >I have never understood why the "higher self" is referred to as both being a >part of the individual and as acting on the individual. If it knows >something that I do not know, then it is not me. Are you only your knowledge, grasshopper? ;-)> I think "me and the not-me" is extremely significant to deal with. The "higher-self" is refered to as being "the individual" and as acting on and somewhat through "the personality", which is said to be the temporary and conditionally invested part of it, entangled with matter of the lower mental and astral types. The formation of a personal human ego is both the reason for human incarnate experience and the source of the problem. In the life of an ordinary human being, the personality is quasi-autonomous, and apparently separate from it's inner parent by a gap in consciousness between lower and higher manas. A person can live "cradle to grave" and consciously know little more of their higher Ego than faint impulses and stirrings, usually through the heart (the seat in man of higher triad), though they are founded on it and it's life and power manifest as the nucleus of their being. (Re: don't look for the higher ego in your head, look for it in your heart.) If an interior effort is made to give allegiance to the higher self, surrender the personality to it and live so as to become more and more "it's presence in action where you are", then by law of invitation it can descend into human psychology, acting in the lower planes through the instument of man. How much so, for how long, and in what way depends on the quality of personal character, the constancy of the sacrifice, and what of the higher life it has made itself able to receive. This is the reconciliation of heart and head (seat of the lower personality), experienced as a conscious renewal or "rebirth." Love is said to be the key. Knowledge alone is less desirable. ____ >>and become lost souls. >I do not see how it is possible for anything to be separate from something >that is all-encompassing. >How long do these lost souls stay that way, or are they annihilated without >ever recovering? I remember a phrase from "The Mahatma Letters" which said >that some souls undergo misery and torment for a manvantara, but I cannot >remember to whom it was referring. The teaching on the subject, as I remember it, is that when a final, terminal split occurs, the constituent parts of the lower personal vehicles, along with whatever causal matter breaks away with them, eventually dissipate and return to the common pool of elements, much like the dissolution of lower vehicles in the normal course of events post-mortem. There is economy to nature, nothing is lost in respect to raw materials, psychological or otherwise. But to the severed entity it's a matter of experiencing consequences. The dissolution process is said to be frenzied agony, burning with desire without possibility of satisfaction until integrity is lost and the elements are set free. The higher ego, over long cycles of time, has gambled and lost all or most of it's manvantaric investment in the lower planes through a "determined (personal) persistence in deliberate evil". At the appropriate time, a critical mass of selfishness is achieved and the final break occurs: the Ego's effort for the cycle is a failure. Stunned, it is said to take it's losses, karmic consequences and for the time being, cut off from the current of evolution, stand - or so it seems - outside that evolution, in the condition of "avichi" (the "waveless" or that which is without vibration). It will have to wait, perhaps even until a future evolutionary scheme to try its hand at the human cycle again, which, owing to karma, inevitably takes place at a much lower level. The important distinction to make in all of this is between the higher Ego and the personality. More to the point, it is the important connection to make. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:29:34 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: T-bonics Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961228034150.14374f64@iprolink.co.nz> [Tom Robertson] >>>>The final, official definition of Theosophy is "the dogmatic >>>>creed that says that a spirit of brotherhood is the ideal." >>>> ..... >>I have rarely seen such a profound demonstration of "the voice of the >>silence." To show her complete acquiescence in my final definition of >>"Theosophy" simply by not saying anything is a stroke of genius on Kym's >>part. > [Kym] >Your shot over my bow has not gone unnoticed; along with your admittedly >artful catch of my technical erratum - you were also clever enough to do >it where it would appear on a day when retribution is supposed to be at >its ebb. I'm impressed. > >However, being the refined and gentle woman I am, I must warn you that >when these 'goodwill toward MEN' days have passed - I plan on morphing >back into the decorum of Scorpio. And I am sure you will again venture >into hazardous territory. So I can only say. . .be afraid, be very afraid. > >Yet, somehow, Tom R., I still wish you a Merry Christmas - imagine that. > >:-) I love it. I won't say another word. M. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:29:38 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961228034154.146ffa34@iprolink.co.nz> Different bods have written >>> A verrrry Merrrry Christmas/Winter Solstice >>> to everyone on the list. >> My wishes to everyone also! >> >>> For those located in other regions than the US Midwest, >>> it's going to be around 15 degrees in Chicago on Christmas day >>> with snow coming in tonight ... >>> >> Many more miles to the west, I just woke up here in western >>Montana - to around 5 feet of snow ... >> >Merry Xmas from NZ. It looks like we are heading for 25°C or 80F. As >today is Boxing Day, lots of people will be at the beach or having >barbecues in the back yards. Yeah. More greetings and very best wishes from New Zealand. Another thing they do here at this time of year is that most of the population in the northern half travels to the southern half and vice versa. Then they do it all again about 2 weeks later. In between, the country dozes - and recovers for the year ahead. Love to all. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:29:41 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961228034157.1437ba04@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to John Mead >The agreement each member makes when joining the society >is to (conceptually) accept the three objects. ... >it is my experience that to *want to* define a line >to demarcate ideas as "un-theosophical" is *itself* untheosophical. > >i.e. we should not talk about *where* the line should be >drawn ... but ... > >*why* would one even *WANT* to?? Yes, John. Engaged-in as a demarcation dispute, it has got to be one of the most fruitless possible. I have never seen it advance the cause of theosophy, and I've seen it tried many times. On the other hand, to want to find the heart of theosophy and how that heart can illuminate everything you do and find around you, then discrimination begins to operate at its finest. Yes, even logic has its theosophical uses ;-} Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:15:29 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <199612271325.IAA21968@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > You are probably right about this, since it takes common experience, but not > necessarily a logical definition, for certain words to be understood. Other > intuitive concepts such as "justice," "beauty," and "goodness" could be > added to your list. It was untheosophical of me to be illogical. > It is comforting to know that theosophy has flourished on the planet Vulcan. Live Long and Prosper!!! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:24:53 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: HPB's Chicken Crosses the Road Message-ID: <199612271325.IAA21980@newman.cris.com> ---------- This post seems to be making the rounds on the internet. I feel is it philosophically thought-provoking enough for the logically-unchallenged members of this auspicious list. AEB > --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- > > > Why did the chicken cross the road? > > > > > > Plato: > > For the greater good. > > > > Karl Marx: > > It was an historical inevitability. > > > > Thomas de Torquemada: > > Give me ten minutes with the chicken and I'll find out. > > > > Timothy Leary: > > Because that's the only kind of trip the Establishment would let it > > take. > > > > Douglas Adams: > > Forty-two. > > > > Oliver North: > > National Security was at stake. > > > > Albert Einstein: > > Whether the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the > chicken > > depends upon your frame of reference. > > > > Salvador Dali: > > The Fish. > > > > Ernest Hemingway: > > To die. In the rain. > > > > Werner Heisenberg: > > We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it > was > > moving very fast. > > > > Jack Nicholson: > > 'Cause it (censored) wanted to. That's the (censored) reason. > > > > Ronald Reagan: > > I forget. > > > > Henry David Thoreau: > > To live deliberately... and suck all the marrow out of life. > > > > Joseph Stalin: > > I don't care. Catch it. I need its eggs to make my omelette. > > > > Machiavelli: > > So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken > which > > has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with > > fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a > > paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely chicken's > > dominion maintained. > > > > Hippocrates: > > Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its pancreas. > > > > Telstra Management: > > Deregulation of the chicken's side of the road was threatening its > > dominant market position. The chicken was faced with significant > > challenges to create and develop the competencies required for the > > newly competitive market. Telstra management, in a partnering > > relationship with the client, helped the chicken by rethinking its > > physical distribution strategy and implementation processes. Using > > the Poultry Integration Model (PIM) T.M helped the chicken use its > > skills, methodologies, knowledge capital, and experiences to align > > the chicken's people, processes, and technology in support of its > > overall strategy within a Program Management framework. Telstra > > Management convened a diverse cross-spectrum of road analysts and > > best chickens along with T.M consultants with deep skills in the > > transportation industry to engage in a two-day itinerary of > meetings > > in order to leverage their personal knowledge capital, both tacit > and > > explicit, and to enable them to synergize with each other in order > to > > achieve the implicit goals of delivering and successfully > > architecting and implementing an enterprise-wide value framework > > across the continuum of poultry cross-median processes. > > > > The meeting was held in a park-like setting enabling and creating > an > > impactful environment which was strategically based, > industry-focused, > > and built upon a consistent, clear, and unified market message and > > aligned with the chicken's mission, vision, and core values. This > was > > conducive towards the creation of a total business integration > > solution. Telstra Management helped the chicken change to become > more > > successful. > > > > Coalition Frontbencher: > > Because although the bird's shares in the current side of the road > > couldn't really be seen to be influencing the bird's portfolio > > responsibilities, there was a technical breach of the bird's > alliance > > with the current side of the road and the code of conduct for > > ministerial responsibility. > > > > Pauline Hanson: > > Because that's where they belong. They don't deserve to be on this > > side of the road. They've 'fowled' this side of the road enough > with > > their presence. Why don't they go back to the side of the road > where > > they came from! We're in danger of being AVIANISED. > > > > The Grimm Brothers: > > It wasn't a chicken anymore, it was a slender beautiful swan. And > all > > the other swans crossed the road together with the beautiful swan > and > > they lived happily ever after. > > > > Arnold Schwarzenegger: > > HE VILL BE BACK! He is chust going to the chymnasium. > > > > Sylvester Stallone: > > Waada waadha aa waadha waa. > > > > Nietzsche: > > Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also > > across > > you. > > > > Carl Jung: > > The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt necessitated that > > individual chickens cross roads at this historical juncture, and > > therefore synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being. > > > > Jean-Paul Sartre: > > In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the chicken > found > > it necessary to cross the road. > > > > Ludwig Wittgenstein: > > The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects > "chicken" > > and > > "road," and circumstances came into being which caused the > > actualization of this potential occurrence. > > > > Aristotle: > > To actualize its potential. > > > > Buddha: > > If you ask this question, you deny your own chicken-nature. > > > > Darwin: > > It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees. > > > > Emily Dickinson: > > Because it could not stop for death. > > > > Epicurus: > > For fun. > > > > Ralph Waldo Emerson: > > It didn't cross the road; it transcended it. > > > > Johann Friedrich von Goethe: > > The eternal hen-principle made it do it. > > > > David Hume: > > Out of custom and habit. > > > > Saddam Hussein: > > The chicken crossed the road as an unprovoked act of rebellion and > we > > were quite justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it. > > > > Pyrrho the Skeptic: > > What road? > > > > John Sununu: > > The Air Force was only too happy to provide the transportation, so > > quite understandably the chicken availed himself of the > opportunity. > > > > The Sphinx: > > You tell me. > > > > Mark Twain: > > The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated. > > > > Stephen Jay Gould: > > It is possible that there is a sociobiological explanation for it, > but > > we have been deluged in recent years with sociobiological stories > > despite the fact that we have little direct evidence about the > > genetics of behavior, and we do not know how to obtain it for the > > specific behaviors that figure most prominently in sociobiological > > speculation. > > > > Captain James T. Kirk: > > To boldly go where no chicken has gone before. > > > > Noam Chomsky: > > The chicken didn't exactly cross the road. As of 1994, something > like > > 99.8% of all US chickens reaching maturity that year, had spent 82% > of > > their lives in confinement. The living conditions in most chicken > > coops break every international law ever written, and some, > > particularly the ones for chickens bound for slaughter, border on > > inhumane. My point is, they had no chance to cross the road (unless > > you count the ride to the supermarket). Even if one or two have > > crossed roads for whatever reason, most never get a chance. Of > course, > > this is not what we are told. Instead, we see chickens happily > dancing > > around on Sesame Street and Foster Farms commercials where chickens > > are not only crossing roads, but driving trucks (incidentally, > Foster > > Farms is owned by the same people who own the Foster Freeze chain, > a > > subsidiary of the dairy industry). Anyway, ... (Chomsky continues > for > > 32 pages. For the full text of his answer, contact Odonian Press) > > Our local county road department: To show the possum that it can > be done. > > > > --------- End forwarded message ---------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:54:44 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Telephone Scam in USA Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961227135444.006b2c80@mail.eden.com> Yesterday I read that the well known area code 809 scam has a new twist. The 809 area code has been broken up into 17 new area codes. For example, one of them is 242 which is Bahamas. According to a news report, some calls cost as much as $25, with $30 being the average. In one case a company was swindled out of $75. So look out if you get a page or msg on your answering machine with a suspicious area code. You can always call the AT&T operator to check where a particular area code is, if you run into one which looks suspicious. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 27 08:51:47 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: HPB's Chicken Crosses the Road Message-ID: <199612271351.IAA25871@envirolink.org> Ouch. That hurt my spleen. However, I did like Douglas Adams' answer. How zen-like. Logically, 42 is the answer to everything. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:12:01 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Ann, > I think Oak Park has a local ordnance requiring all citizens to shovel the > snow in the street in front of their house and prescribes flogging for those > who fail to do so. Oak Park, is of course the worlds weirdest police state > and representatives from Singapore make annual pilgrimages to it. Chuck ... Here in Montana we got *another* foot of snow last night. The snow in my front yard is now at the level of my windows. Snow shovels seem somehow pathetic in the face of it ... my neighbors and I are considering hiring the unibomber to blast us out of our houses. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 12:15:19 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <961227121519_777904880@emout09.mail.aol.com> Bart Lidofsky writes--> This group a couple of hundred of their members to join en masse, with the purpose in mind of voting themselves in during a Presidential election year, and, with the majority of the Board, transferring all the TS property to their organization. The Objects of the TS are sufficiently vague as to keep the taz people happy. Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you do to keep something like this from happening? Richard Ihle writes--> (I am assuming that your post was meant to illustrate the correctness of the recent national bylaw changes etc.) I would do what you would probably do: 1) I would assume that it was a problem for all the members of the organization rather than just for a small coterie that I might be associated with and which might regard itself as having the ~true proprietary~ interest in the Society. 2) I would therefore abandon any possible past practice where the direction of the Society is determined by any kind of "string-pulling" from behind the scenes (e.g., via the super-fast "merely house-cleaning" strategy) and perhaps do a nice write-up (like yours) of the situation and get as much member attention as possible. 3) I would make an "unmoderated" forum available for all points of view on the issue. 4) I would then let the members vote on the bylaw changes. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 96 09:27:15 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 783 Message-ID: <199612271728.JAA32474@scv2.apple.com> >Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you >do to keep something like this from happening? Put in a clause forbidding property transfers except at fair market value according to licensed appraisers? Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:00:00 -0800 (PST) From: "Edgar \"Mauricio\" Rivera" Subject: What is Theosophy? Message-ID: I have been a member of this list for some 5-6 months and I enjoy it quite a bit. Throughout all this time I still have doubts in my mind about what Theosophy is all about. Since the subject has arised over the last couple of days I was wondering if anybody out there can recommend a good book to read, that will give me a little more in-depth of the principles of Theosophy. I have read in the past about different philosophies and I became actually curious about Theosophy since I found out about this list. Questions that come to my mind are: - What is Theosophy? I have read Webster's description so far but seems to differ a little bit from what I hear in this list. - How is Theosophy differs from other philosophies (i.e. Yoga, Rosicruscians, Brahmanism, alchemy, gnostics, etc) in a basic way. - The Headquarters in Pasadena. Is this a place that I can go and visit? Please feel free to respond to my personal e-mail (mrivera@gnp.com) if desired, I would really enjoy getting as many answers as possible. Thanks Mauricio ----- 0 ----- E. Mauricio Rivera GNP Computers, Inc. --- Life is so Beautiful!!! --- mrivera@gnp.com Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!! Ext. 2116 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 11:20:51 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Let me give you all a practical problem, and tell me how you would > solve it (I will ignore any messages on the topic of how you would NOT > solve it). >[snip] > Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you > do to keep something like this from happening? Bart ... A couple questions first ... 1. Is this an actual problem a Lodge is facing, or is this question being asked to try to make a point (i.e., justify Wheaton's actions). 2. What are the current Lodge bylaws govering the use and disposition of assets? If this is a real problem, I'm sure a number of Theosophists, on this list and off it, would be quite willing to extend considerable energy to help - myself included (and I just got done helping to write the bylaws for one non-profit, and have just been invited onto the board of another that is starting the process) - however, the solutions to the problem posed, while quite easily within the realm of possibility to do - would be time consuming ... and probably few would wish to spend several hours writing bylaws for the sake of a hypothetical question. In general, there are a whole variety of options ... from structuring "poisen pills" into the organizational structure (these stategies have become quite sophisticated - corporations use them to fight off hostile takeovers) ... to very simplistic strategies such as writing a single bylaw that provides for a two month gap between elections and the date upon which newly elected officers take power - hence during those two months, should the scenerio you mentioned happen, the Lodge would have time to simply transfer ownership of the assets to another TS Lodge ... leaving the new, hostile board with nothing to sieze. If this is really a potential situation, and not simply a hypothetical, then it is very disturbing ... and your bylaws *clearly* need re-writing, as they do not come up to the common standards of non-profit bylaws in today's world. It is one thing to have disputes about the direction of a Lodge by a majority membership, but quite another to have bylaws so vague that its assets could easily be transferred to *another organization*. The non-profit sector (at least in the US) is a *huge* growth sector in today's economy, and large amounts of money are flowing into it - it is (IMO) incumbent upon non-profits to become as sophisticated as any private sector corporation in the handling of its assets and finances. And many *aren't* ... with bylaws hopelessly vague, accounting procedures sloppy, and abuses rampant ... this is not just small ones - even the *giants* have recently had horribly public fiascos - the United Way, NAACP, etc. This, by the way, has been used as the justification, by Wheaton, for giving itself the ability to step in and sieze the resources of Lodges. It would seem an easy and simple solution to the problem you stated Bart, if your scenerio unfolded, Wheaton could just step in. But this centralization of power is, in fact, deeply *dangerous* ... in a decentralized system, with HQ having no control over the assets of individual Lodges, the *worst* that could happen would be that an individual Lodge - due to incompetence and failure to write suitable bylaws (which they could be easily encouraged to do) - might be siezed in a "hostile takeover" - i.e., potential *damage to the TS is as decentralized as power is* ... but lets take your scenario to the *national* level. Its recent changes have raised the bar to those who would want to take control, but this has also raised the bar to those who would rectify the problem *should some group achieve what they wanted*. Say Scientology, or the Christian Coalition (that, in fact, *has* conducted very successful stealth campaigns) sees the *National* TS - with its assets, publishing house, library of occult books they'd dearly love to *destroy* ...... and they see that the TS has less than 5000 members (and the Christian Coalition has larger memberships in single *counties*) - now *they* start a campaign ... it would take but a (relatively) small percentage of Pat Robertson's members, persevering over the course of less than a decade (even *with* all the controls erected by Algeo) to take control of the national board (and the CC *thinks* in terms of decades). Now *because* of the centralization of power Wheaton has accomplished - giving itself the legal right to sieze the assets of Lodges - it means that once the CC has control of Wheaton, it has control of the assets of the Lodges. This, IMO, is a *far* more severe danger than that of an individual Lodge here and there being threatened. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:17:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <32C420B1.5D7A@eden.com> JRC wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Let me give you all a practical problem, and tell me how you would > > solve it (I will ignore any messages on the topic of how you would NOT > > solve it). > >[snip] > > Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you > > do to keep something like this from happening? > > Bart ... > A couple questions first ... > 1. Is this an actual problem a Lodge is facing, or is this question being > asked to try to make a point (i.e., justify Wheaton's actions). > > 2. What are the current Lodge bylaws govering the use and disposition of > assets? > > If this is a real problem, I'm sure a number of Theosophists, on this list > and off it, would be quite willing to extend considerable energy to help - > myself included (and I just got done helping to write the bylaws for one > non-profit, and have just been invited onto the board of another that is > starting the process) - however, the solutions to the problem posed, while > quite easily within the realm of possibility to do - would be time > consuming ... and probably few would wish to spend several hours writing > bylaws for the sake of a hypothetical question. > > In general, there are a whole variety of options ... from structuring > "poisen pills" into the organizational structure (these stategies have > become quite sophisticated - corporations use them to fight off hostile > takeovers) ... to very simplistic strategies such as writing a single > bylaw that provides for a two month gap between elections and the date > upon which newly elected officers take power - hence during those two > months, should the scenerio you mentioned happen, the Lodge would have > time to simply transfer ownership of the assets to another TS Lodge ... > leaving the new, hostile board with nothing to sieze. > > If this is really a potential situation, and not simply a hypothetical, > then it is very disturbing ... and your bylaws *clearly* need re-writing, > as they do not come up to the common standards of non-profit bylaws in > today's world. It is one thing to have disputes about the direction of a > Lodge by a majority membership, but quite another to have bylaws so vague > that its assets could easily be transferred to *another organization*. > > The non-profit sector (at least in the US) is a *huge* growth sector in > today's economy, and large amounts of money are flowing into it - it is > (IMO) incumbent upon non-profits to become as sophisticated as any private > sector corporation in the handling of its assets and finances. And many > *aren't* ... with bylaws hopelessly vague, accounting procedures sloppy, > and abuses rampant ... this is not just small ones - even the *giants* > have recently had horribly public fiascos - the United Way, NAACP, etc. > > This, by the way, has been used as the justification, by Wheaton, for > giving itself the ability to step in and sieze the resources of Lodges. > It would seem an easy and simple solution to the problem you stated Bart, > if your scenerio unfolded, Wheaton could just step in. But this > centralization of power is, in fact, deeply *dangerous* ... in a > decentralized system, with HQ having no control over the assets of > individual Lodges, the *worst* that could happen would be that an > individual Lodge - due to incompetence and failure to write suitable > bylaws (which they could be easily encouraged to do) - might be siezed in > a "hostile takeover" - i.e., potential *damage to the TS is as > decentralized as power is* ... but lets take your scenario to the > *national* level. Its recent changes have raised the bar to those who > would want to take control, but this has also raised the bar to those who > would rectify the problem *should some group achieve what they wanted*. > Say Scientology, or the Christian Coalition (that, in fact, *has* > conducted very successful stealth campaigns) sees the *National* TS - with > its assets, publishing house, library of occult books they'd dearly love > to *destroy* ...... and they see that the TS has less than 5000 members > (and the Christian Coalition has larger memberships in single *counties*) > - now *they* start a campaign ... it would take but a (relatively) small > percentage of Pat Robertson's members, persevering over the course of less > than a decade (even *with* all the controls erected by Algeo) to take > control of the national board (and the CC *thinks* in terms of decades). > Now *because* of the centralization of power Wheaton has accomplished - > giving itself the legal right to sieze the assets of Lodges - it means > that once the CC has control of Wheaton, it has control of the assets of > the Lodges. This, IMO, is a *far* more severe danger than that of an > individual Lodge here and there being threatened. > Regards, -JRC > Let me add my 2 cents worth. With the present TSA bylaws, the National Board can cancel all the charters of all the lodges and take over all the assets and can shut down TSA and then roll over all the assets into the Theosophical Investment Trust. Once the assets are held by TIT, the Board of Trustees of TIT is not answerable to anyone, yes no one. They also need not disclose any information other than that they are required to furnish in annual IRS tax filings of non profit organizations. While this is not going to happen with the present officers, CC with its long term planning can achieve this very easily. They do not have to spend a penny on any "real theosophical work" and no one can question them. (BTW early this year I requested a copy of the TIT by-laws and trust document and am yet receive it. I am still wondering why I have not received it. May be TIT does not have to furnish them to anyone.) The above is not a hypothetical scenario. Look what happened to the Krishnmurti Writings Inc., a trust set up to help Krishnaji to teach. There came a time when he was *alive*, he could not use the assets of the Trust and the property in Ojai and Madras for his stay and lectures. He along with the Attorney General of California had to sue the Trust and the Trustees. The Trustees in turn sued Krishnamurti back *twice* and the litigation went on for 18 years and many attornies had a good time in prolonged litigation. The cases were finally settled only after Krishnaji's death. If this happened to Krishnaji when he was alive, from a Trust setup to help him teach, one can easily imagine what could happen to TIT. BTW, one of the Trustees of the Krishnamurti Trust mentioned above is with us and is active in the TSA Board of Directors and is also on the Theosophical Investment Trust. So we do have a serious potential future problem and careful thought should be given. Hope someone is working on it. MKR PS: Much of the Krishnaji litigation information was not known even to most long time TSA members. After Radha Sloss's published her book on Krishnaji, the information has been coming out and is in public domain. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:29:24 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Karma: law? Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961228134140.11ff263c@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to John Straughn [Michael] >>I wonder is whether there is such a thing as retribution that Karma is >>usually associated with, or that there is an outside agency or law which >>passes judgement, punishing one for one's deeds. > [John] >Perhaps it is an "inside agency". The higher self (Atman/Buddhi/Manas?) >may punish you for your "sins". Surely the higher self would know how >karma does it's work, and perhaps it can manipulate itself so that karma >(good or bad) would be attracted to it's manifestation - us. I'd say, kind-of inside agency, in that your Atman, operating through its surrounding layers, creates *relationships* of different qualities with other incarnated beings and life around it. The Atman is basically universal but becomes particularised in its expression through those layers. It then experiences the natural outworking of those relationships - a much more natural and holistic view of karma than seeing it as something that lands on you from a great height. For example, if you habitually see others in a mean light (projecting from the store of stuff in your own mental "house"), you tend to do mean things towards them and establish/maintain what you could call a mean relationship. Then they react to that, and you wonder why, if you are like many people. But what you *become* is as much a part of karma as what comes to you from "outside" - perhaps the more terrifying part as you become more self aware. At least initially. And note that I quote outside, for as consciousness expands, the distinction between inside and outside becomes less relevant and less imprisoning. And it ain't all bad. The above also applies the positive side, and in fact that is our means of growth, becoming, and eventual emancipation. It's all in the choices we make - a rather undervalued aspect of creativity and spirituality. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 07:29:30 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Karma: law? Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961228134146.1deff85c@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to Tom >I have never understood why the "higher self" is referred to as both being >a part of the individual and as acting on the individual. If it knows >something that I do not know, then it is not me. That's one I've wrestled with for a long time. Perhaps the (an!) answer is that the individual you experience yourself to be is a moveable focus of awareness, and that there are whole areas of your being which that active focus has not visited yet but, as they stir into activity, begin to exert a pressure for change both short-term and long-term. Short-term as in an interchange with a person or a meditation, and long-term in the sense of maturation and evolution. Richard Ihle's psychogenetic ideas are extremely relevant and helpful here. So there is a sort-of funnel of consciousness, to coin an image for it, and as the point of our awareness or self-identification rises, its scope becomes wider. This point can rise up and down form moment to moment and, as I was saying, in a more long-term way. Furthermore, the "funnel" for each person, though separate at its lower levels, begins to overlap with and ultimately merge at the top, with those of others. This applies to so many things; try it on karma, for instance. "If it knows something that I do not know, then it is not me" loses its relevance and power when the ground under your definition/experience of "me" shifts, and believe me, it can change radically. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:49:26 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: Bart ... A further note ... the United Way problem (a couple of years ago now) is quite illuminating ... the United Way is structured so that the national level serves at the pleasure of, and to serve the interests and activities of ... the local chapters. The national President was caught doing things like taking his girlfriend on the Concorde for dinner in Paris. When this first started coming to light, the national level engaged in all sorts of investigations - and they were moving very slowly - well, the *local* chapters, in large numbers, began simply withholding their payments to the national ... and this had the effect of greatly speeding all sorts of changes, people were very quickly booted, new accounting procedures and checks and balances put into place, & etc. Our National Headquarters appears to act as though Lodges and members are meant to serve the interests and ideology of Wheaton, rather than Wheaton facilitating the study and practice of Theosophy *as each Lodge conceives those things to be*. Imagine *this* scenerio: The national bylaws are so structured so that membership dues are paid not to Wheaton, but to the treasurer of *each Lodge*. Standardized bylaws sophisticated enough to ensure financial responsibility are put into place. Each (quarter/half year/year) each Lodge pays *half* the dues to Headquarters, and may pay *or withhold* the other half - depending upon the extent to which it believes it can better further its activites with the benefits it receives from Wheaton, or by spending the money on its *own* projects. That is, if Wheaton served the interests of Theosophy *as thesophists conceived them* it would prosper and find its work furthered. If, however, Wheaton, in the opinion of the Lodges, was *not* producing what the Lodges considered to be programs and projects that served their members, Wheaton's abilities to engage in further such activities would be restricted. Envision the creativity it might unleash if suddenly financial incentives were structured so that 1) Lodges had incentives to recruit and retain members - if suddenly there were incentives to do more public programs, to adjust the presentation of Theosophy to the current world and the problems faced by the communities in which Lodges operated. As it stands right now, there is no incentive at all to recruit and retain ... but if the successful adaptation of Theosophy to the modern world, introductory programs dynamic and lively, enabled Lodges some funds to further expand their work - it could well breathe life back into a dying Society. *Success should be rewarded and creatvity encouraged*. 2) Well, you say, Lodges can already charge extra dues. Yes, but in making Wheaton partially *dependent* upon the discretion of Lodges, it would mean that Wheaton had incentives to *serve the membership in the ways the membership desired to be served*. Wheaton seems to be constantly producing all manner of study guides (for those topics *it* considers suitable for study), programs, videos, etc., etc. But there is absolutely no reason for them to even consider whether they actually suit anything but their own opinions - and in some cases seem little other than opportunities for someone at HQ to explore their own personal interests. (I remember a couple of times the Lodge I belonged to got materials HQ wanted reviewed ... and a couple of them were *so* bad, *so* bloody *boring* that our Lodge concluded that if we ever showed them in public, it would be the surest way to cut Lodge membership in half.) What if Wheaton suddenly had to *justify* its activities ... What if, (for instance), a Lodge, disappointed with the introductory materials produced by Wheaton for a particular topic, had some operating money to produce *their own video* .. tapped the resources of its membership, and wound up producing something far more creative and engaging than the Wheaton production ... and what if then they could *advertise and sell it* to other Lodges that *themselves* had the discretionary funds to buy such things. What if, in short, Wheaton was not free to determine, like some parent, what *it* thought was "best" for Theosophy, but had instead to concern itself with serving the Lodges and members *as the Lodges and members desired to be served*. Theosophy, IMO, considered at the largest level, would be far, *far* better served if its leadership, instead of trying to *control* the membership, instead attempted to *unleash it*. But this is based on a certain set of assumptions not shared by Wheaton: 1) That the vast majority of Theosophists are *spiritually responsible* - that is, that they do not take lightly their membership, and take seriously the activities they consider "theosophical". That is, *the membership can be trusted*. 2) That members and Lodges are capable of reading the Three Objects, and determining *for themselves*, according to conscience and predilection, the best ways to express those Objects, and further Theosophy in the world at large. 3) That a decentralized structure would *appear* sloppy, mistakes would be made and odd directions taken - but that decentralization would also mean mistakes *could* be made and any damage would be localized and limited. To attempt to produce a Society relevent to, *and in the service of*, the 21st century (instead of the 19th) ... individuals and Lodges *need to be able to make mistakes*. *Every* corporation or non-profit that has survived in the long term has done so because it has found the way to continually adjust itself to the changing world ... seems to continually be coming up with new ways of presenting itself ... but what is rarely pointed out is that for every new successful product or program, a dozen failures happened. Success in organizations almost invariably comes from an environment in which exists *the freedom to make mistakes*. 4) That Headquarters, *according to the intentions of HPB, our founder* is *not* supposed to be a platform for imposing a specific ideology, but rather is responsible for administering resources that belong to *all theosophists*. The assets it is responsible for, the funds, the Trust moneys, the Library & etc., come from the *goodwill of individual members, past and present* ... and for any faction at Wheaton to *use* these assets as leverage to determine the *ideology* of the membership is a *severe* abuse of power. In order, for instance, to have access to the Olcott Library - something John Algeo did not and could not create - I would have to pay $30 to further Algeo's particular vision of Theosophy ... a vision that has the current TS in *worse shape*, both financially and in terms of memmbership, than it was before he took office. You need not pose a hypothetical situation concerning your Lodge to raise concerns about the structure of today's TSA - an *actual* problem, a dangerous situation, *already exists* ... a *stealth campaign* has been waged successfully by a few people who believe they know better than the membership as a whole what "Theosophy" and "theosophical activity" is. Slowly and incrementally over the past decade, more and more bylaws have been passed that make it difficult to gain board positions or officer positions unless one is "approved", control over Lodge assets have now been put in the hands of this faction ... and new Lodges and study groups must conform to the ideological standards they set. It would be a very good idea for your Lodge to re-think its bylaws to make the Lodge assets resistant to takeover by the Christian Coalition or Scientology, but you may also wish to consider that if your Lodge happens to stray too far from what Wheaton considers appropriate theosophical study ... you may well find the worst threat to your assets comes not from any outside agency, but from the TS itself. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:44:33 -0800 (PST) From: Brigitte Balint Subject: Re: THEOS-ROOTS digest 249 Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961221125058.1a97dd94@pop.uniserve.com> At 03:54 PM 12/24/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:48:10 -0700 (MST) >From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (The Blavatsky Study Center on the WWW) >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections including Zetetic Skepticism >Message-ID: <199612242048.NAA23830@mailhost.azstarnet.com> > >Jerry Schueler on KPJ's THE MASTERS REVEALED and other Reflections including >Zetetic Skepticism > >Jerry Schueler writes: > >>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:09:15 -0500 >>From: Jerry Schueler >>To: theos-l@vnet.net >>Subject: Thesis vs. Hypotheses > >>Paul, as I read your book, I too thought that your thesis >>was that HPB used a combination of fact and fiction, rather >>than your revealing any exact personalities. You left >>this in terms of probabilities rather than definites. I agree >>with you. BTW, what is your feeling on the identities given >>to us by Alexis? I do not recall Dan ever rebutting Alexis' >>identities of M and KH. I presume that he would be >>opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities. Dan, >>did you ever write a rebuttal of Alexis' revelations? > > >Jerry, I would be most happy to write on Alexis' identities of >the Masters M and KH. BUT he never provided me with enough information >other than to say that Master M was really the Maharaja of Benares >and KH was really Ranbir Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir. >He did provide one other detail that he believed KH appearing at >Lahore in Nov. 1883 was really Ranbir Singh. Compare this with what >KP Johnson says: KH appearing at Lahore was really Thakar >Singh. I would assume that most of us would agree that at least one of these >hypothesis on KH is flat wrong! > >Alexis never provided >his reasoning, his evidence or his sources for these bare statements. >When I asked him for such, he simply became negative with me and >threw insults my way. If you, Jerry, can get him to provide us with >more details, evidence, reasoning, etc., I will undertake a >historical analysis of his hypotheses. My analysis may turn out to >be a rebuttal of his hypotheses. Maybe not. I am somewhat intrigued >with his hypothesis that Morya was really the Maharaja of Benares. > >Jerry writes: > >>I presume that he [Dan?] would be >>opposed to *any* attempt to equate human personalities... > >I am assuming that you mean that I would be opposed to any >attempt by Johnson or anyone else to identify the Masters >Morya and Koot Hoomi with any "human personalities". If this >is what you mean, then I will definitely say you are wrong in >your presumption. From my study of the original source documents >of HPB's time, I am inclined to believe that Morya and Koot Hoomi >were physical human beings with human personalities and therefore, >they had names and addresses, etc. In theory, I see no reason why >one could not identify who Morya and Koot Hoomi were. It's a matter >of looking at the evidence and seeing if one can make a positive >identification or not. I simply believe in light of what I present in >my HOUSE OF CARDS that Johnson is barking up the WRONG tree. >JRC in a recent post says that one Theosophical organization wants to >keep the Masters mysterious. Well, this may be true. I don't know >if such a broad generalization is true but I do know that a number of >students of Blavatsky have told me that one should not delve >into the personalities of the Masters and that to do so would be like >snooping. But I try to approach the subject like a historican. What is the >evidence? In what direction does the preponderance of evidence lead us >in our conclusions? > >A number of attempts have been undertaken before Johnson's books >were written to name the Masters. Mary K. Neff in the 1940s >wrote one or two articles in which >she attempted to identify M and KH. As recently as the 1970s, Geoffrey >Barborka, George Linton and Virginia Hanson attempted to identify >Koot Hoomi as Nisi Kanta Chattopadhyaya. From my own unpublished >research on Chattopadhyaya, I am convinced that he is not Master K.H. for >a number of very good reasons. Steve Richards in the American Theosophist >several years ago tried to identify what Tibetan Buddhist sect Morya and >Koot Hoomi belonged to. I believe that Johnson in his books does >not mention any of this prior study and information. IMO, Johnson is as far off >in his identifications of these two Masters as Barborka, Hanson and Linton >were off in their identification of Koot Hoomi. All of these authors do not >consider various information that throws grave doubt on their speculations. > >JRC, Richard I. and others on Theos-l are always being skeptical of what >HP Blavatsky and other Theosophists (including Algeo) have written or said. >That's fine and good with me. Certainly ask questions. But I have been >equally critical and skeptical of Johnson's assumptions and statements. >What's wrong with that? > >And I would say to JRC, RI, JS and others if you >are going to be skeptical of "orthodox" commentators on Theosophy, be equally >critical and skeptical of "unorthodox" versions as well. Also if you want to >be a "zetetic skeptic" be just as critical of your own assumptions and beliefs. >I dare say that our greatest blind spot is our OWN assumptions and background >beliefs. > >And in the past I have noticed that a number of people posting on Theos-l/Theos- >roots have given the impression that I was some sort of orthodox Theosophist >or that I was "working" for the the various Societies in maintaining the >status quo >and combatting "heresies". > >Let me expand on this. Yes, I do agree with Dr. Algeo, for example, on many of >his criticisms of Johnson's books. But this agreement, as far as I am >consciously >aware of it, is based upon my own understanding and research of the subject for >almost 30 years. I do not naively accept or reject what Dr. Algeo writes >because he is a PhD or >because he is the president of the Wheaton T.S. My very good friend, the late >Walter A. Carrithers, Jr., to whom I will ever be indebted, held many views >about >Blavatsky and her contemporaries which I totally disagree with. And my >disagreement >is based upon various evidence which I believe Carrithers did not, for >whatever reasons, >consider. A number of years ago, I published in Theosophical History a >critique of >Jean Overton Fuller's biography of HPB. Miss Fuller was not too pleased with my >listing of dozens of her mistakes and misstatements. And as far as I know >she has >a fairly "orthodox" view of Blavatsky and her Masters. Take another example. >I had published in The American Theosophist two years ago, my article on the >origins >of the "third volume" of the Secret Doctrine. My conclusions run contrary >to the opinions >of more than a dozen deep students of the SD including Carrithers, Barborka, >de Zirkoff, >Cleather, Ryan and others. Three current day students and friends of mine >(Richard Robb, >Dara Eklund and Ted G. Davy) still disagree with these conclusions of mine. >I have listened >to whatever input they have given me, but I still believe that my >conclusions are clearly >supported by the evidence. > >I write all of this to show that I don't approach this subject of >HPB and her Masters with a rigid belief system or with a priori assumptions. >I have gone out >of my way since 1968 to collect everything ever written about Madame >Blavatksy. WHY? So that >I could read and decide for MYSELF what is what about HPB and her Masters; >so that I would >not naively believe or disbelieve based on second hand information. I try >to look at the evidence >(whatever it may be) and try to come to conclusions based on the >preponderance of that >evidence instead of letting my a prior assumptions determine my conclusions. >And I am >also aware of how little I sometimes really know! And I realize that after >years of hard work >and thinking through these complicated, complex issues, I may still be sadly >mistaken >on many of these subjects!! And I am always open to input from other >people. Tell me I'm >wrong but also please tell me how I am wrong, what I am not considering, >what evidence I >should look at. What assumption I should or should not be making. Etc. Etc. > >If Johnson thinks I have picked on him and have been unduly harsh with his >speculations, he >should read some of my unpublished material critiquing what various authors >(including Marion Meade, >Carrithers, de Zirkoff, Endersby and others) have written on HPB, the >Masters and Theosophy. I say that >one should cross off the name of the author of a book or an article and >judge the contents on its own >merits. Who cares who wrote the material! Is the text factual, accurate, >fair, etc.? Has >relevant material and evidence been ignored? Has the author carefully >researched the material? What >sources have been used and relied upon? Etc. Etc. > >I have even used this approach in researching the writings of Blavatsky >and the Masters. This is a laborious job and very time consuming but the >benefits of this approach >are overwhelming. An example: Alan Bain has mentioned on theos-l within >the last few months the >Henry Kiddle speech from which Koot Hoomi allegedly plagiarized. Years ago, >I went and found the original >publication in which Henry Kiddle's speech was published. Then I went and >studied chronologically every >article, etc. that was written (pro, con and neutral) on the "Kiddle >Incident." Including looking >at the handwriting of the Mahatma Letter in which Koot Hoomi incorporates >portions of Kiddle's speech. >Maybe one of these days I will get around to writing an article on my >discoveries. Of course, most >Theosophists or critics of Theosophy could care less about doing this kind >of indepth research. They >might consider such research boring or they already have an opinion and >evidence might get in the way! > >The same technique can be used in the study of HPB's writings and the the >teachings contained therein. >Some will say this is a very intellectual process but it is amazing how >often after going through this laborious >process (which can be sometimes very boring and exhausting) that various >"intuitions" and "insights" enter >one's mind. > >Daniel Caldwell Hello, I noticed my E-MAIL address on top of this list as X- Please explain the meaning of this. Even though I do participate, I read all the lists with great interest. Happy New Year to all You Theosopists. Brigitte From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Dec 27 16:52:36 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199612272152.QAA00447@envirolink.org> JRC writes: >Chuck ... > Here in Montana we got *another* foot of snow last night. The snow >in my front yard is now at the level of my windows. Snow shovels seem >somehow pathetic in the face of it ... my neighbors and I are considering >hiring the unibomber to blast us out of our houses. > (-:), -JRC It sounds like you're worse off than me. And I'm clear up in Alaska. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 15:56:52 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, John Straughn wrote: > JRC writes: > >Chuck ... > > Here in Montana we got *another* foot of snow last night. The snow > >in my front yard is now at the level of my windows. Snow shovels seem > >somehow pathetic in the face of it ... my neighbors and I are considering > >hiring the unibomber to blast us out of our houses. > > (-:), -JRC > It sounds like you're worse off than me. And I'm clear up in Alaska. > --- > The Triaist Actually, its kind of cool - most of western Montana took the day off work, and this afternoon I went with a bunch of friends to a park to play a game of softball - it was almost surrealistic to play a game in slow motion but still quite a riot to try to run around in the snow. The first guy that tried to slide into third completely disappeared. Tomorrow a friend of mine (a military buff with far more money than is good for him) with a HumVee is taking a bunch of us up a mountain to try to ski and do some ice climbing. Blizzards in the mountains are just a *riot*. (However if my posts stop after tomorrow it probably means I'm dead or something.) Tee Hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 19:17:09 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961227191709_642828323@emout05.mail.aol.com> Murray, We'd be jealous but we know what your weather can be like in july. Do the sheep move with the people or just stay in one place? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 19:17:14 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophy and Truth Message-ID: <961227191712_909796003@emout08.mail.aol.com> Ann, Is that how Tom got those ears? :) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 19:18:56 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961227191855_1088579496@emout16.mail.aol.com> John, If you should disappear from the list for a while we'll send the dog sleds for you. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 18:53:22 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > John, > If you should disappear from the list for a while we'll send the dog sleds > for you. > > Chuck the Heretic Knowing my friends, they'd use the sleds for kindling and cook the dogs. But the dinner would be a nice gesture (-:). Just found out five minutes ago that our plans have changed ... we have to go to a location other than the one we were planning, `cause an avalanche just dumped 15 feet of snow on the interstate west of Missoula and the Highway Patrol has set up roadblocks and isn't letting anyone pass. My friend and one of the women going with us think the HumVee could make it through (or over or around) the avalanche (anyone who thinks men can dominate women hasn't met Montana women - they can stare down bears and not even have an elevated heartbeat afterwards), but the rest of us pointed out that we probably don't have enough rounds of ammunition to get through the police roadblocks ... so we decided to go north instead of west. Toodles, -JRC, UniTheosophist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 19:37:37 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: higher egos and lost souls Message-ID: <199612280345.WAA18569@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Mark Kusek > > The "higher-self" is refered to as being "the individual" and as acting > on and somewhat through "the personality", which is said to be the > temporary and conditionally invested part of it, entangled with matter > of the lower mental and astral types. The formation of a personal human > ego is both the reason for human incarnate experience and the source of > the problem. > > In the life of an ordinary human being, the personality is > quasi-autonomous, and apparently separate from it's inner parent by a > gap in consciousness between lower and higher manas. A person can live > "cradle to grave" and consciously know little more of their higher Ego > than faint impulses and stirrings, usually through the heart (the seat > in man of higher triad), though they are founded on it and it's life and > power manifest as the nucleus of their being. I see this same process occurring in writing fiction. I write a character/s that will fit my general storyline, as I want something to be worked out or learned from that story. The seed of the characters are planted in my imagination, but as time goes on they become autonomous, as most wrtiers will tell you. They start tapping you on the shoulder and saying, "Hey, psst, writer! We want to live. Get busy at that keyboard." Then the stories flow according to what they tell me intuitively. I have created them and now they tell me which way they are going. In certain places, the soul energy/writer comes through and they are thinking some higher thought or moving in a different direction, because at some point we have made contact. > (Re: don't look for the higher ego in your head, look for it in your > heart.) > > If an interior effort is made to give allegiance to the higher self, > surrender the personality to it and live so as to become more and more > "it's presence in action where you are", then by law of invitation it > can descend into human psychology, acting in the lower planes through > the instument of man. How much so, for how long, and in what way depends > on the quality of personal character, the constancy of the sacrifice, > and what of the higher life it has made itself able to receive. > > This is the reconciliation of heart and head (seat of the lower > personality), experienced as a conscious renewal or "rebirth." > > Love is said to be the key. Knowledge alone is less desirable. > I love the way you say this. The relationship between the higher self (soul) and the personality is a powerful love relationship. It seems that all the other love relationships in one's life are only preparation for this. > > The teaching on the subject, as I remember it, is that when a final, > terminal split occurs, the constituent parts of the lower personal > vehicles, along with whatever causal matter breaks away with them, > eventually dissipate and return to the common pool of elements, much > like the dissolution of lower vehicles in the normal course of events > post-mortem. I'd never heard this before - where did it come from? > > The important distinction to make in all of this is between the higher > Ego and the personality. More to the point, it is the important > connection to make. In my terminology, I am assumming that the higher Ego is also called the Soul. Since I come from a background of over 20 years of Alice Bailey, that is the term used. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:13:54 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961228011353_876276945@emout03.mail.aol.com> John, You mean you don't know someone up there who has a tank you can borrow? I'm told that they are very good at getting through roadblocks. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 23:43:15 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > John, > You mean you don't know someone up there who has a tank you can borrow? I'm > told that they are very good at getting through roadblocks. > > Chuck the Heretic > We Montanans have hidden our tanks until the lunatics from Jordan have their trial and the FBI and ATF leave town. Those federal fellows take things *so* seriously, and seem unable to understand that threatening to overthrow the government with surplus military hardware is just a *hobby*, a means of having a bit of completely innocent, harmless fun on lazy Big Sky afternoons. Tee Hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:10:33 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961228021031_1789033008@emout02.mail.aol.com> John, I quite understand and if you really want to see them jump, sidle up to one of them and whisper "psionics" in his ear. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 28 10:30:14 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Headquarters Message-ID: <199612281530.KAA22249@envirolink.org> How are the people who "lead" headquarters chosen? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 28 10:54:41 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <199612281554.KAA23428@envirolink.org> Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB writes: >My model: Individual karma is purely psychological. > >In the Bible it says, (as far as I remember): The sin came into being = >when Man ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of right and = >wrong. > My version: THE Individual soul came into being as a separate karmic = >entity when in his evolution it understood the thin line between Right = >and Wrong. At that time it also encountered the "Conscience", the guilt, = >the (mostly unconscious) knowledge of having hurt another being, and = >thereby committed Sin. It has left a scar in our Psyche all the time = >since.=20 The allegory of the tree has always been one of my favorite mysteries of the bible. It is, obviously, the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, but the biggest mystery comes with the defining of "Right" and "Wrong". Before Eve, and later Adam, took the plunge, they were satisfied with their existence with Elohim and thought nothing of empowering themselves. This is the only conclusion I have been able to make with regards to other "evils" represented in other religious allegories: When Eve bit into the fruit, she was basically saying to herself, "*I* want to know. If *I* don't find out for *myself* what this is, I don't think I will ever be complete." This was her first selfish act. Selfishness was wrong. And after experiencing what selfishness could do to her, she knew that selfishness was a very evil thing. Unconsciously, as you say later, she passed her guilt onto Adam by getting him to bite the fruit as well. Perhaps because she wanted to make sure that she was not the only evil person. Perhaps because she knew that she had done something wrong and did not want to be alone with her guilt. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Dec 28 11:17:48 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Karma: law? Message-ID: <199612281617.LAA24515@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >At 02:41 PM 12/26/96 +0000, John Straughn wrote: >>Michael writes: > >>>Yes, I quite agree being subject to collective Karma > >Collective karma relates to individual karma in the same way that the >results of a coin flip relate to the probability of the coin flip. >Collective karma tends to eventually even out for all individuals. Even out how? As in good experiences eventually happen the same number of times as bad? If there is such a thing as collective karma (and I'm sure there is) wouldn't it be impoosible for it to be balanced out? Particularly after all of the hatred in history? All of the wars? The attempted genocides? The famine? How could it be evened out? >>Just a hypothesis, a new, unresearched or thought-out idea: Perhaps each >>one of us has a "karmic meter" within us which reacts somewhat directly >>with the karmic pool. I.e. if your "karmic meter" leans toward the >>negative, then you would be more likely to attract negative karma. If it >>leaned toward the positive, etc. > >That karma deals in probabilities and tendencies like this strikes me as >much more likely than that it ties particular cirumstances to particular >acts. To say that karma has any particulars is to say that karma itself is a self- conscious entity. Would you be willing to agree to such a notion? >>The higher self (Atman/Buddhi/Manas?) may >>punish you for your "sins". Surely the higher self would know how karma >>does it's work, and perhaps it can manipulate itself so that karma (good or >>bad) would be attracted to it's manifestation - us. > >I have never understood why the "higher self" is referred to as both being a >part of the individual and as acting on the individual. If it knows >something that I do not know, then it is not me. Alright then, let me ask you a question. What were you thinking about on July 29, 1986 and 11:37 am? > >>it is my understanding that there >>are such involutors who, eventually, severe(sp?) their atmic tie with the >>Absolute, and become lost souls. (G. de Purucker) > >I do not see how it is possible for anything to be separate from something >that is all-encompassing. It is my understanding that the atman itself does not encompass all. It is the first manifestation from an absolute. (I'm not sure if this is correct, in fact, this particular statement which insinuates that there are more than one absolute has confused me for quite some time.) Bleh. Before I make a rebuttal regarding this subject please allow me to do some more research. > >>being self-conscious, we can choose to"descend" into matter, eventually >ending up in >>what the "masters" call the eighth sphere. "Avichi Nirvana". Those who >>have reached A.N. lose their atmic link and become lost souls. "Lost", >>defined by them as "selfish and materialistic". Therefore, "universally" >evil. >How long do these lost souls stay that way, or are they annihilated without >ever recovering? I remember a phrase from "The Mahatma Letters" which said >that some souls undergo misery and torment for a manvantara, but I cannot >remember to whom it was referring. Yes, these are the "lost souls" to which I am referring. If they sink so low that they no longer have any tie to the absolute, they have no hope of raising themselves spiritually before the end of the manvantara. However, after the pralaya and the beginning of the next manvantara, they will be able to start anew in their evolution. So, they are not totally annihilated, but for the remainder of the manvantara in which they became lost souls, they will "undergo misery and torment". I don't know how they are tortured, because fortunately, I have never been there. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:56:47 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: On Sat, 28 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > John, > I quite understand and if you really want to see them jump, sidle up to one > of them and whisper "psionics" in his ear. > > Chuck the Heretic Might be fun, except when you startle them, their instinctual reaction is to start really big fires. I heard, by the way, that the gov't really *is* kinda loopy about psionics - first guy I ever knew that was experimenting with the stuff was introduced to me by a friend, and when I told him I wouldn't mind seeing some of his equipment, agreed, on the condition that I permit myself to be blindfolded on the way to his house so I wouldn't know where he lived. I declined, telling him I wasn't too much into kinky science. I thought at the time that he was just another friendly, mildly paranoid wacko. I later learned from someone that some weird gov't agency actually *had* come and taken some of the guy's stuff - no explanation, no identification ... they just came in and *took* it. Of course, this was when the cold war was still going on. The CIA and NSC were actually using people like Keskin ... I saw an interview with him sometime back - upon discovering that he could relatively easily project small magnetic fields, the CIA would do things like put him on a plane, tell him the briefcase of a certain Russian Embassy official going to Mexico contained computer disks with sensative information, and have him spend the flight corrupting or even erasing the disks by surrounding them with magnetic fields. Anything to help The Cause I guess. Seriously though, have you ever had the US Gov't show an interest in your electronics? (I promise to blindfold myself when I read your reply (-:). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:43:07 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karma: law? Message-ID: <32c574fc.83553612@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 28 Dec 96 16:28:53 +0000, you wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>Collective karma relates to individual karma in the same way that the >>results of a coin flip relate to the probability of the coin flip. >>Collective karma tends to eventually even out for all individuals. >Even out how? As in good experiences eventually happen the same >number of times as bad? If there is such a thing as collective karma >(and I'm sure there is) wouldn't it be impossible for it to be balanced >out? Particularly after all of the hatred in history? All of the wars? The >attempted genocides? The famine? How could it be evened out? The sum of all collective karma and the sum of all individual karma must be identical, since it is only individuals who perform collective acts. Each particular instance of collective karma is not fair, but, on average, since collective karma unfairly benefits the individual as much as it unfairly harms the individual, it is fair. If one group of people is inferior to another group of people in a certain way, in the absence of information about any particular individual, it is appropriate to assume that each individual of the inferior group is probably inferior to each individual of the other group in the way that they are being compared. That this collective karma is unfair to each individual does not mean that, on average, it is not fair to all individuals. For example, the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. I estimate that, in comparing the physical strength of any given man with that of any given woman, the probability is 90% that the man is stronger than the woman. That this probability estimate would lead to false conclusions in cases of comparing certain women to certain men when the women are stronger is irrelevant to the fact that, on average, applying generalities in this way is fair and accurate. >To say that karma has any particulars is to say that karma itself is a self- >conscious entity. Would you be willing to agree to such a notion? Karma is not arbitrary, as must a self-conscious entity with free will be to some extent. But it could connect particular acts with particular consequences without being self-conscious. That the karma of jumping out of an airplane is falling does not mean that gravity is self-conscious. >>I have never understood why the "higher self" is referred to as both >>being a part of the individual and as acting on the individual. If it knows >>something that I do not know, then it is not me. >Alright then, let me ask you a question. What were you thinking about >on July 29, 1986 and 11:37 am? Nothing. I was asleep. :) Of course, this leads to the question of what an individual is, since it has no duration. There may be continuity between the "I" of 10 years ago and the "I" of now, but, since it constantly changes, it is not the same entity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:58:11 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <32c77a8f.84980399@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 28 Dec 96, John Straughn wrote: >When Eve bit into the fruit, she was basically >saying to herself, "*I* want to know. If *I* don't find out for *myself* what >this is, I don't think I will ever be complete." This was her first selfish >act. Selfishness was wrong. I like Annie Besant's view of selfishness as being an inevitable step in evolution, without which individuality would have been impossible. I recall reading, though, perhaps in "Masters and the Path," that free will was an "experiment," implying that it was not inevitable. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:49:15 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <199612282113.QAA01266@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > The allegory of the tree has always been one of my favorite mysteries of the > bible. It is, obviously, the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong, but the > biggest mystery comes with the defining of "Right" and "Wrong". Or was it "right" and "left"? > Before Eve, > and later Adam, took the plunge, they were satisfied with their existence with > Elohim and thought nothing of empowering themselves. Perhaps they were living in a state of innocence, like the animals, going by instinct alone, with no sense of duality. > This is the only > conclusion I have been able to make with regards to other "evils" represented > in other religious allegories: When Eve bit into the fruit, she was basically > saying to herself, "*I* want to know. If *I* don't find out for *myself* what > this is, I don't think I will ever be complete." Or perhaps, "I want to be self-conscious". In becoming awake and conscious of one's actions, one would begin to perceive duality. > This was her first selfish > act. Selfishness was wrong. And after experiencing what selfishness could do > to her, she knew that selfishness was a very evil thing. When first-born, the baby is dependent on its creator or mother. At around 2 years, it begins to explore its independence and its ability to say "no". It is just growing up and becoming its own person. Is this selfish and evil? > Unconsciously, as you > say later, she passed her guilt onto Adam by getting him to bite the fruit as > well. Perhaps because she wanted to make sure that she was not the only evil > person. Perhaps because she knew that she had done something wrong and did > not want to be alone with her guilt. Or wanted to share the freedom. In which case, Adam would owe her a debt of gratitude for her courage. T. Robertson: >I like Annie Besant's view of selfishness as being an inevitable step in >evolution, without which individuality would have been impossible. I >recall reading, though, perhaps in "Masters and the Path," that free will >was an "experiment," implying that it was not inevitable. Cayce refers to this as well. "Thus a new individual, issuing from and dependent upon God, but aware of an existence apart from Him, came into being. To the new individual there was given, necessarily, the power to choose and direct its own activity; wihtout free will it would remain a part of the individuality of God. Mind, issuing as a force from God, would naturallly fulfill His thoughts, unless directed otherwise. The power to do this - to direct otherwise the forces of mind - is what man calls his free will. The record of this free will is the soul. The soul began with the first expression which free will made of its power, through the force of mind. The first thought which it generated of itself, the first diversion of mind force from its normal path, was the beginning of the soul." There is a River by Thomas Sugrue (pg.363) -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 14:25:38 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199612282113.QAA01247@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC >The CIA and NSC > were actually using people like Keskin ... I saw an interview with him > sometime back - upon discovering that he could relatively easily project > small magnetic fields, the CIA would do things like put him on a plane, > tell him the briefcase of a certain Russian Embassy official going to > Mexico contained computer disks with sensative information, and have him > spend the flight corrupting or even erasing the disks by surrounding them > with magnetic fields. Anything to help The Cause I guess. > Reminds me of Atlantis. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 16:49:54 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Only love Message-ID: <32C5C019.3DE8@withoutwalls.com> Ann wrote: >The relationship between the higher self (soul) and the personality is >a powerful love relationship. It seems that all the other love >relationships in one's life are only preparation for this. ___ Couldn't agree more: It's love, or it's not give all that you've got back to the heart that gave it to you. It's round make the circle, round make the circle, of love. ___ On lost souls: >> The teaching on the subject, as I remember it, is that when a final, >> terminal split occurs, the constituent parts of the lower personal >> vehicles, along with whatever causal matter breaks away with them, >> eventually dissipate and return to the common pool of elements, much >> like the dissolution of lower vehicles in the normal course of events >> post-mortem. >I'd never heard this before - where did it come from? You have to dig around a bit. Here are a few references on the subject: The Causal Body and the Ego - A.E.Powell (TPH) Chap.25 "The Ego and His Investment" (Mostly compiled from CWL's Inner Life Vol. 1 & 2) Fundamentals of Esoteric Philosophy - G.deP (TUP) Chap.16 "Lost Souls and Soulless Beings" Esoteric Teachings - G.deP (Point Loma) Vol 9 Correlations of Cosmic and Human Constitutions Chap.3 "Lost Souls and the Left Hand Path" Esoteric Tradition Vol.2 - G.deP (TUP) Chap. 17 "Heavens and Hells" - see also Chap. 32 "Pneumatology and Psychology" The original reference that Tom cited is, I believe: Mahatma Letters, pg.171 There are some scattered references in both Isis Unveiled Vol 2 pg 368 and the Secret Doctrine Vol 1 pg 255 Vol 3 pgs 493, 513-516, 521-529 ___ Concerning Alice Bailey: >> The important distinction to make in all of this is between the higher >> Ego and the personality. More to the point, it is the important >> connection to make. >In my terminology, I am assumming that the higher Ego is also >called the Soul. Since I come from a background of over 20 years of >Alice Bailey, that is the term used. Yes. She had quite a lot to say about the "Soul". My dog-eared "Esoteric Psychology" comes immediately to mind. To understand the subject of "lost souls" in Bailey terminology means that you have to get specific and focus in on the nitty gritty of the structure of the Egoic Lotus, it's rays and the subtle interior projections made into the lower mental unit, astral and physical permanent atoms (as well as the other centers), that go to form the incarnate human monad (what AAB also called the "personality"). We are born basically functioning in and through these lower centers and their corresponding vehicles. Our development as people, historical human personalities, is effectively an integral identification with them. For the time being, we identify so much with them that we don't know ourselves to be more. And, as said, it's possible to live your whole life identifying that way and never bother to inquire any further. This is the area where the psychic "split" or "gap" occurs that is the hope of aspirants and the risk of selfishness. There is an aspect to the subject of "lost souls" that specifically relates to the tendencies of the personal entity (i.e the lower permanent atoms considered as a triad) and it's fate over a series of lifetimes. Then their is the consideration of what happens to the Ego itself, (or "Soul", as you say) in the Causal Body on it's own plane, when, after many cycles, it's lower triad is deemed a failure and it has to deal with the consequences of a lost "investment". Another good Bailey reference for this is: A Treatise on Cosmic Fire Pgs 991-993 Hope this helps. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 20:54:55 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961228205455_36072430@emout16.mail.aol.com> John, Well, it isn't electronics, but yes, I've had a lot of govt interest in what I do. I think I terrify them. When I signed the contract for the first book, I looked out the next Sunday morning and a small limo with blacked out windows was parked in front of the house and sat there for a couple of hours. This is not a neighborhood where such things are seen. If a limo comes it is usually big and for a wedding or funeral. So all the neighbors were looking at it and finally it pulled down about a half block and sat for about twenty minutes and then left never to be seen again. I get a lot of fan mail with people with Col. and Gen. in front of their names. But the real fun thing was at the 1993 World Parliament of Religions when Charles Tart literally ran away from me. He took one look at my name tag, changed colors and spent the entire day making sure he was not in the same room with me. Maybe it has something to do with the story about me and the nuclear reactor. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 20:54:59 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Headquarters Message-ID: <961228205458_438723566@emout19.mail.aol.com> Well, the by-laws say they are elected, except for the national secretary and national treasurer, they're appointed. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 20:57:41 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961228205741_642949619@emout17.mail.aol.com> Ann, Actually, it reminds me of some experiments we did back in the early 80's where we would send energy into computers to see if we could disrupt the programs. And please don't remind me of Atlantis, that was lab assistant's mistake that sank it, not me! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:10:56 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: What am I, anyway? Message-ID: <32C5D30E.1C3@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >Of course, this leads to the question of what an individual is, That's why the old temple doors had the big "Man Know Thyself" sign over them. >since it has no duration. There may be continuity between the "I" of 10 years ago >and the "I" of now, but, since it constantly changes, it is not the same >entity. What's the difference between you're use of "duration" and "continuity?" ___ What never was cannot be lost what always is determines self :-) Mark From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:13:09 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Wonder Message-ID: <32C5D392.295@withoutwalls.com> John wrote: >It is my understanding that the atman itself does not encompass all. It is >the first manifestation from an absolute. (I'm not sure if this is correct, >in fact, this particular statement which insinuates that there are more than >one absolute has confused me for quite some time.) Bleh. Before I make a >rebuttal regarding this subject please allow me to do some more research. Some things I try to keep in mind: The septenary scheme so often used in Theosophical books is meant to be taken as a model that has neither beginning nor end. For example, the entire seven great planes of our scheme are but the lower seven subplanes of the greater Kosmic Physical plane, etc, ad infinitum. The same goes for the origination of Monads (and their Atmans) in any given Hierarchy. They are said to issue forth from a Logos, who stands as the Supreme Hierarch of that scheme, but is itself also evolving, and a part of a greater scheme, etc, ad infinitum. These are recondite subjects to say the least. Only the barest sketches have been given. We are asked to remember that the teachings deal primarily with our Earth's Planetary scheme. Any extraploation to cosmic proportions is analogous speculation. Even the "Masters" are said to have limits to the scope of their knowledge beyong this scheme. We can only poorly refer to such mysteries as the Absolute, Being and Non-Being, Unmanifest and Manifest, One and Many, etc. They are symbols, metaphors. HPB in the Secret Doctrine refers to " ... the solution of the riddle .. before which even the highest Dhyan Chohan must bow in silence and ignorance - the Unspeakable Mystery of that which is called by the Vedantins, Parabrahman." - SD., 1, 352 Toodle pip, Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:28:27 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <199612290228.TAA04811@snowden.micron.net> John wrote: >> This is the only >> conclusion I have been able to make with regards to other "evils" >represented >> in other religious allegories: When Eve bit into the fruit, she was >basically >> saying to herself, "*I* want to know. If *I* don't find out for *myself* >what >> this is, I don't think I will ever be complete." Ann replied: >Or perhaps, "I want to be self-conscious". In becoming awake and conscious >of one's actions, one would begin to perceive duality. John wrote: >> This was her first selfish >> act. Selfishness was wrong. And after experiencing what selfishness >could do >> to her, she knew that selfishness was a very evil thing. Ann replied: >When first-born, the baby is dependent on its creator or mother. At around >2 years, >it begins to explore its independence and its ability to say "no". It is >just growing >up and becoming its own person. Is this selfish and evil? John wrote: >> Unconsciously, as you >> say later, she passed her guilt onto Adam by getting him to bite the >fruit as >> well. Perhaps because she wanted to make sure that she was not the only >evil >> person. Perhaps because she knew that she had done something wrong and >did >> not want to be alone with her guilt. Ann replied: >Or wanted to share the freedom. In which case, Adam would owe her a >debt of gratitude for her courage. Thank you, Ann, for your insightful answers on the subject and psychology of Eve. Eve, Eve, Eve. . .now there's a woman who figured it out: the greatest of all evils is ignorance. Extra congrats to our dear Eve, since the fate of the first in-your-face kinda gal, Lilith, didn't work to deter her either. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 03:07:00 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: What am I, anyway? Message-ID: <32d1dad7.109627993@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 29 Dec 96, Mark Kusek wrote: >What's the difference between you're use of "duration" and "continuity?" That there is nothing which does not constantly change means that there is nothing which has any duration. Since, at any two instants, any given object is something different, what it was at any given instant in the past does not exist anymore. But since there is a relationship in time in how the past causes the future, there is continuity between the past and the future. Change only occurs gradually. Just as all human beings have some things in common but are unique, so does what is known as a certain individual have much in common with what was known as that individual in the past, but cannot be the identical individual. The difference between the difference between the "you" of the past and the "you" of the present and the difference between the "you" of now and the "me" of now is only one of degree, not of kind. Neither the "you" of the past nor the "me" of now are the "you" of the present. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 19:42:52 -0800 From: aclanton@corp.gnp.com (April Clanton) Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 786 Message-ID: <199612290342.TAA01590@boar.gnp.com> >Thank you, Ann, for your insightful answers on the subject and psychology of >Eve. >Eve, Eve, Eve. . .now there's a woman who figured it out: the greatest of >all evils is ignorance. Extra congrats to our dear Eve, since the fate of >the first in-your-face kinda gal, Lilith, didn't work to deter her either. >Kym Who is Lilith? April Joy From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Dec 29 02:23:29 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <199612290723.CAA04885@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Sat, 28 Dec 96, John Straughn wrote: > >>When Eve bit into the fruit, she was basically >>saying to herself, "*I* want to know. If *I* don't find out for *myself* >>what this is, I don't think I will ever be complete." This was her first >>selfish act. Selfishness was wrong. > >I like Annie Besant's view of selfishness as being an inevitable step in >evolution, without which individuality would have been impossible. I >recall reading, though, perhaps in "Masters and the Path," that free will >was an "experiment," implying that it was not inevitable. I don't see how AB could have come to that conclusion, for in order to have selfishness, one must be self-conscious. We were individuals long before we ever became self-conscious entities. The closest I may be able to come to agreeing with her is to say that selfishness *was* an inevitable side-effect to self-consciousness. I have yet to read "Masters of the Path". Perhaps I should. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Dec 29 02:28:03 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Headquarters Message-ID: <199612290728.CAA05112@envirolink.org> Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >Well, the by-laws say they are elected, except for the national secretary and >national treasurer, they're appointed. > >Chuck the Heretic I took it for granted that they were elected. I guess my question is: Who elects them? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Dec 29 02:32:11 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: What am I, anyway? Message-ID: <199612290732.CAA05300@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >That there is nothing which does not constantly change means that there is >nothing which has any duration. Since, at any two instants, any given >object is something different, what it was at any given instant in the past >does not exist anymore. But since there is a relationship in time in how >the past causes the future, there is continuity between the past and the >future. Change only occurs gradually. Just as all human beings have some >things in common but are unique, so does what is known as a certain >individual have much in common with what was known as that individual in >the past, but cannot be the identical individual. The difference between >the difference between the "you" of the past and the "you" of the present >and the difference between the "you" of now and the "me" of now is only one >of degree, not of kind. Neither the "you" of the past nor the "me" of now >are the "you" of the present. > That goes right along with my favorite saying: "I'm always leaving, and I'm always going somewhere, even when I'm standing still." --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Dec 29 02:33:43 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 786 Message-ID: <199612290733.CAA05350@envirolink.org> April Clanton writes: > >>Thank you, Ann, for your insightful answers on the subject and psychology of >>Eve. > >>Eve, Eve, Eve. . .now there's a woman who figured it out: the greatest of >>all evils is ignorance. Extra congrats to our dear Eve, since the fate of >>the first in-your-face kinda gal, Lilith, didn't work to deter her either. > > >>Kym > >Who is Lilith? I've heard her name several times in several circles. I've been told she is in the Bible as well, but I have yet to run into her name. I must just pass over it. I've read that &*$#^ book five times. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 20:02:39 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961230021455.13475ac0@iprolink.co.nz> Chuck >We'd be jealous but we know what your weather can be like in july. Do the >sheep move with the people or just stay in one place? Re weather, it depends whether you like liquid or solid coming at you out of the sky. Auckland (where I live) is a place I like to avoid in February when the humidity coupled with the warmth gets a bit too much for me. You've suddenly made me nostalgic - for all those sheep allusions we used to hear when we were in America. Almost as strange as the overwhelming sense of kinship we felt with Australians we met in America. Visions of a woolly tide slurping from one end of the country to the other. Theosophy is good training for visualisations like this. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 08:27:41 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <32ed29a2.129798760@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 29 Dec 96, John Straughn wrote: >We were individuals long before we ever became self-conscious entities. The idea that makes the most sense to me is that individualization marks the graduation of part of a group soul of an animal into an individual human being, and is the birth of the development of self-consciousness. >The closest I may be able to come to >agreeing with her is to say that selfishness *was* an inevitable side-effect >to self-consciousness. It is impossible not to be selfish. Unselfishness is not a repudiation of self-interest, but is an identification of self-interest with the interests of others. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 12:28:52 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961229122850_977089447@emout07.mail.aol.com> Murray, I know, I just couldn't resist it. The image of a mass of sheep stampeding across the countryside, being herded by talking pigs all of whom sound like John Algeo was just to much to pass up. By the way, when you were visiting Olcott, what did they have you doing? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:12:56 -0500 From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 786 Message-ID: <961229141250_611773536@emout16.mail.aol.com> Ah, yes! Tough Montana women. Does that include Elizabeth Clare Prophet ensconced up in them thar Montana hills with her devotees? They're all armed to the teeth, I'm told. This self-proclaimed conduit to the Master Koot Humi is the one you should be criticizing. Not poor HPB.! Better behave yourself, you dissident theosophists in Montanaland!. The Great White Brotherhood, according to Gura Ma, has relocated from the Himalayas to the Grand Teton mountain range. The better to keep an eye on you, I presume! LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 11:18:41 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: What is he, anyway? Message-ID: <32C6C407.3C37@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >That there is nothing which does not constantly change means that there is >nothing which has any duration. Since, at any two instants, any given >object is something different, what it was at any given instant in the past >does not exist anymore. But since there is a relationship in time in how >the past causes the future, there is continuity between the past and the >future. Change only occurs gradually. Just as all human beings have some >things in common but are unique, so does what is known as a certain >individual have much in common with what was known as that individual in >the past, but cannot be the identical individual. The difference between >the "you" of the past and the "you" of the present and the difference >between the "you" of now and the "me" of now is only one of degree, not >of kind. Neither the "you" of the past nor the "me" of now are the "you" >of the present. Huh? Aren't you Tom Robertson? Won't you be you from birth to death (at least)? Should we not send birthday presents? Look closer at what you describe as "the relationship in time of how the past causes the future", and what is "common", "continuous" and "unique" about a person (to use your words). There is a structural integity to any given object in the pattern that it develops along (i.e. a rose bud is a rose is a wilting rose, etc.), that includes the progression that we call growth, life cycle, etc. In that their is identity and individuality (at least for the time), despite the changes, no? In man there is a subject of consciousness as well as the objective experience. As a person, we identify both as the "one who grows and changes" and as the "one who subjectively experiences these". Or do you disagree? Subjectivity (as personal human ego consciousness) is itself a pattern that also grows, develops and changes, yet has structural integrity. Then there is the even a deeper wonder in the causes of the word "I" and the silence that precedes and follows it. Mark but not really Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 11:28:34 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Hallelujah Message-ID: <32C6C657.37FA@withoutwalls.com> Bravo Ann and Kym! Now Eve gets off the hook and we all can relax a liitle bit and be more understanding and accepting of our human condition, selfishness, ego, etc. Whew! What a relief! I totally agree. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:23:17 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: eve & the apple Message-ID: <199612291936.OAA08926@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >>When Eve bit into the fruit, she was basically >>saying to herself, "*I* want to know. If *I* don't find out for *myself* what >>this is, I don't think I will ever be complete." This was her first selfish >>act. Selfishness was wrong. Seems to me that curiosity and the urge to know what makes things tick, or what they're made of, and experiment with them was somehow implanted into us. All civilisation, good, bad or indifferent, is built up on someone's (or some group's) need to experiment with items in nature which surrounded them, from stone axes, to lightning, to ceramic chips. It would be a little too short sighted to call that selfish. I think it was rather a need to know, and to improve one's way of operating. Incidentally, my cat Chou chou is also very curious by nature ... not the only animal who is so. I don't punish her because she wants to know what something new is, and how it ticks. I let her smell it and touch it & etc.; or I tell her "it's hot", our signal for "it hurts". She's a wide awake cat. Everything that goes on around her is of interest to her. I think because I encourage her coriosity. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 14:33:30 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Adam & Eve Message-ID: <199612291946.OAA09627@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >erhaps they were living in a state of innocence, like the animals, going >by >instinct alone, with no sense of duality. According to the Secret Doctrine they were. The evolution is said to be from an instinctual, not well defined amorphous entity, to an entity more & more material, which develops more & more savy as it descends further into matter, and then returns to being a mostly spiritual being, without a sense of duality, but also a being who is conscious of what it is, and is quite adept at working with the forces of nature. iesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 13:18:52 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 786 Message-ID: On Sun, 29 Dec 1996 Lmhem111@aol.com wrote: > Ah, yes! Tough Montana women. Does that include Elizabeth Clare Prophet > ensconced up in them thar Montana hills with her devotees? They're all armed > to the teeth, I'm told. She's kind of a hoot. They are actually no more armed than the rest of Montana - which is quite a heavily armed state. But the weaponry is more part of a traditional culture of hunting than the semi-automatics of larger cities. Curiously enough, there is *very* little violent crime in Montana. Elizabeth Clair and her gang *tried* to get a bunch of weaponry, but her Security Chief was caught and imprisoned a few years ago for an illegal weapons purchase. Her devotees mostly keep to themselves - and for the most part Montanans just let them be except to have an occaisional laugh at their expense. This state is full of extremely independent-minded people ... and people usually leave one another alone with whatever beliefs they want to hold. In rural America (IMO) there is generally quite an intense sense of community that simply does not exist to the same degree in larger population areas. To their neighbors, the question of whether they believe the Lord of the Sun speaks directly to Elizabeth matters considerably less than whether or not they would pitch in to help build a new volunteer fire station. > This self-proclaimed conduit to the Master Koot Humi > is the one you should be criticizing. Not poor HPB.! I've *never* spoken a word against HPB - only against those far dimmer bulbs that apparently believe they know far better than she what Theosophy is. Tee Hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:38:53 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199612292103.QAA17910@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Actually, it reminds me of some experiments we did back in the early 80's > where we would send energy into computers to see if we could disrupt the > programs. > And please don't remind me of Atlantis, that was lab assistant's mistake that > sank it, not me! > He hit the red button instead of the blue? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 22:37:54 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199612292103.QAA17883@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > . . . But the real fun thing was at the 1993 World Parliament of Religions when > Charles Tart literally ran away from me. He took one look at my name tag, > changed colors and spent the entire day making sure he was not in the same > room with me. Funny. I had a similar reaction when I thought I ran into Steve Halpern at the Parliament. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 22:17:44 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: What is he, anyway? Message-ID: <32cde5cf.7838291@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 29 Dec 96, Mark Kusek wrote: >Tom wrote: > >>That there is nothing which does not constantly change means that there >>is nothing which has any duration. Since, at any two instants, any given >>object is something different, what it was at any given instant in the past >>does not exist anymore. But since there is a relationship in time in how >>the past causes the future, there is continuity between the past and the >>future. Change only occurs gradually. Just as all human beings have some >>things in common but are unique, so does what is known as a certain >>individual have much in common with what was known as that individual in >>the past, but cannot be the identical individual. The difference between >>the "you" of the past and the "you" of the present and the difference >>between the "you" of now and the "me" of now is only one of degree, not >>of kind. Neither the "you" of the past nor the "me" of now are the "you" >>of the present. >Huh? > >Aren't you Tom Robertson? I suspect similarity in principle between the approximate sameness with which individuals are known in the span of one lifetime and the approximation, at the macro level, that classical physics is to Quantum Mechanics. Assuming that its rate of change is reasonably steady, if a blade of grass does not noticeably change in 5 minutes, but does so noticeably change in 500 years that it would not be considered to be the same blade of grass any more, that means that the difference between its being considered to still be the same blade of grass and its not being so considered is only a matter of degree. To consider something to be the same thing that it was at a previous point in time until a noticeable change has taken place is to arrogantly assume that it has not changed just because no change has been noticed. >Won't you be you from birth to death (at least)? Approximately. >Should we not send birthday presents? You might have sent the ones this year to the wrong address. >Look closer at what you describe as "the relationship in time of how the >past causes the future", and what is "common", "continuous" and "unique" >about a person (to use your words). There is a structural integity to >any given object in the pattern that it develops along (i.e. a rose bud >is a rose is a wilting rose, etc.), that includes the progression that >we call growth, life cycle, etc. In that their is identity and >individuality (at least for the time), despite the changes, no? In that it is illusory, as opposed to either real or imaginary, yes. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:28:51 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Tom Robertson? Alan Bain? Message-ID: In message <32B575A4.714A@withoutwalls.com>, Mark Kusek writes >Keith: No, I am Alan's evil twin and your evil twin, in fact we are >septuplets - seven you know! Forgive me, I'm still sick! :) Happy >holidays! > >TTT: I want to be Alan's evil twin, too! In fact, I'm sure the Triaist >would wish Alan change him into his evil twin, too. It must be no fun >being a carrot. We can have an army of Toms. I think Mark is >channeling April Joy in his spare time. S=o) We shall also need an army of carrots. You haven't thought this through properly, have 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: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:02:46 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Happy New Year and all that Message-ID: Greetings to everyone from the wilds of England's Cornwall! Owing to the move from Bristol I have been offline for nearly 2 weeks, so forgive me if I do not get to read everyone's mail - I just downloaded 205 items, mostly from the lists. I shall be a bit slow catching up, but I'm hanging in there (or is it here?) Love 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: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:30:48 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Let's hear it for Bast! Message-ID: In message <199612211324.IAA26965@cliff.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >---------- >>From: kymsmith@micron.net > >>Cats are superior to men and women - the facts are irrefutable. > >If our fellow theos-ler were on-line right at this minute, he would >certainly >agree. (Dr. Bain is in the process of moving himself and his possesions >to another location.) As another cat-lover, I would also say that it is >undeniably >true. All I have to do is ask the four cats that live with me. > >Bast rules! > >-Ann E. Bermingham > Move completed, cat safe and running the show ... Alan the frazzled ... :-) --------- 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, 29 Dec 1996 19:16:21 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 786 Message-ID: <199612300121.UAA06926@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC > > On Sun, 29 Dec 1996 Lmhem111@aol.com wrote: > > > Ah, yes! Tough Montana women. Does that include Elizabeth Clare Prophet > > ensconced up in them thar Montana hills with her devotees? They're all armed > > to the teeth, I'm told. > She's kind of a hoot. They are actually no more armed than the > rest of Montana - which is quite a heavily armed state. But the weaponry > is more part of a traditional culture of hunting than the semi-automatics > of larger cities. Curiously enough, there is *very* little violent crime > in Montana. I would imagine not. After all, if someone took a potshot at a person, they'd just twirl around and blow their head off, since everyone is armed to the teeth. -AEB :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:17:18 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Lilith Message-ID: <199612300121.UAA06964@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > >Who is Lilith? > I've heard her name several times in several circles. I've been told she is > in the Bible as well, but I have yet to run into her name. I must just pass > over it. I've read that &*$#^ book five times. > >From Edgar Cayce, again: "Sex already existed in the animal kingdom, but the souls, in their thought forms, were androgynous. To experience sex created thought forms for companions, isolating the negative force in a separate structure, retaining the positive within themsleves. This objectifications is what man calls Lilith, the first woman." There is a River, by Thomas Sugrue (pg 367) She was later replaced by Eve, as a companion to Adam. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:50:10 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <199612300150.UAA19726@cliff.cris.com> DR. ALAN BAIN IS BACK!!! WHOOPEE! -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 18:07:55 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <32C723D3.4A0C@withoutwalls.com> >It is impossible not to be selfish. Unselfishness is not a repudiation of >self-interest, but is an identification of self-interest with the interests >of others. It's like enlightened self-interest. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 18:07:33 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Will the real Tom please stop changing for a cotton pickin' minute Message-ID: <32C722E2.3ED0@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >I suspect similarity in principle between the approximate sameness with >which individuals are known in the span of one lifetime and the >approximation, at the macro level, that classical physics is to Quantum >Mechanics. Assuming that its rate of change is reasonably steady, if a >blade of grass does not noticeably change in 5 minutes, but does so >noticeably change in 500 years that it would not be considered to be the >same blade of grass any more, that means that the difference between its >being considered to still be the same blade of grass and its not being so >considered is only a matter of degree. Is this your way of saying that you agree with me? >To consider something to be the same thing that it was at a previous point >in time until a noticeable change has taken place is to >arrogantly >assume that it has not changed just because no change has been noticed. When you finally get to see your old Aunt Betty after several years and she says "My stars Tom, how you've changed!" - do you really let her know that she's got the wrong guy? ___ Everybody needs a change a chance to check out the new, but you're the only one to see tha changes you take yourself through ... -Stevie Wonder (Don't you worry 'bout a thing) Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 18:08:06 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Questions about Adam & Eve Message-ID: <32C723DE.3FCD@withoutwalls.com> Dear Theosophizers, Isn't the whole "Adam & Eve" sin/fall story a veiled reference to some of the supposed events in the natural development of this round's third root-race Lemurians and the effect on them of the "coming of the Manasaputras?" Could not the "apple" (from a certain point of view) be seen as the "fire of mind" that the Lords of the Flame "imparted to" or "stimulated in" them? Couldn't this stimulation and it's effects ... individuality and embodied nascent manasic self-consciousness - or - the "fall" and descent of egoic mind into "matter" and the loss of united consciousness with "God's Presence" in "Paradise", i.e., creating the manasic "gap" be viewed as a compassionate benefit to the growing race and actually be in accordance with the evolutionary plan? ... In spite of all the problems it also brings? (As in: "Why did the Manasaputras come" and "what was their motivation in stimulating the race?") Aren't degrees of "ignorance" and "self-ishness" necessary correlates to developing individuality and self-consciousness in embodied humanity? (There's a possible root of compassion for you!) Couldn't the condeming pall of "original sin" and the misogynistic attitude towards women via Eve be a later, misinterpretive political usurpation? Inquiring minds want to know ... Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 19:25:22 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Adam and Lilith and Eve Message-ID: <199612300225.TAA27940@snowden.micron.net> April asks: >Who is Lilith? Rusty as I am on the Lilith legend, here it is in a nutshell: The word Lilith is mentioned once, I think, in the Bible. It's in Isaiah and, according to the KJV (King James Version) is means "screech owl." Lilith, the woman, is a legend which is said to appear in the Midrash (interpretations and commentaries by Jewish teachers on the Torah and Five Scrolls). Lilith was Adam's "first" wife. She was not created from his rib, but made of the same material and at the same time as Adam. Lilith's undoing came when she refused to comply with Adam's request for sex; in particular, she did not approve of the missionary position. In the legend, she specifically and emphatically balks at his preferred method for sex. She found the prostrate arrangement offensive, as it placed her in the submissive position/role. Adam tried to force the issue; Lilith would have none of it, voiced the name of God, rose into the air, and disappeared. Adam dashed off to tell God, declaring to Him how horrid Lilith was for deserting him. God sent angels to find her, who, in turn, found her co-habitating with a pack of demons. The angels told her to return to Adam immediately. She refused, claiming she could never be the wife Adam so demanded. God went into His wrathful mode, and decreed that one hundred of her demon children were to die per day (more than one hundred a day were born to Lilith while she lived with the demons). Lilith still did not submit - to God or Adam - but is said to have pledged revenge for her treatment by swearing to kill the children of Adam. She supposedly haunts and terrorizes pregnant women and newborns (in folklore, she is the demon that causes SIDS). So, then, God created Eve for Adam - utilizing Adam's rib prevented Eve from misunderstanding her position - for she was not made of equal material. Another story twist - after the serpent and apple business, Adam became irked at Eve, blaming her for the Fall and the expulsion from Eden. Adam looked up Lilith and together they had children, but these children ended up turning into demons. Adam went back to Eve. Myth has morphed Lilith into a destroyer of children; a whore; the wife of Satan (after she left Adam); the archetypal bad woman; and the seducer of men and boys while they sleep. She has even been blamed as being the serpent itself and of being the "father," along with Eve, of Cain. It's too weird, I know. Try as "they" might, among those with a feminist agenda, Lilith is still considered really cool. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 06:53:48 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Will the real Tom please stop changing for a cotton pickin' minute Message-ID: <32c94ecb.34713973@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 30 Dec 96, Mark Kusek wrote: >Tom wrote: > >>I suspect similarity in principle between the approximate sameness with >>which individuals are known in the span of one lifetime and the >>approximation, at the macro level, that classical physics is to Quantum >>Mechanics. Assuming that its rate of change is reasonably steady, if a >>blade of grass does not noticeably change in 5 minutes, but does so >>noticeably change in 500 years that it would not be considered to be the >>same blade of grass any more, that means that the difference between its >>being considered to still be the same blade of grass and its not being so >>considered is only a matter of degree. > >Is this your way of saying that you agree with me? As long as calling something by the same name as before only means that it has relatively greater continuity to what has been called the same name than to what has been called a different name, but cannot be identical to what has been called the same name, yes. >When you finally get to see your old Aunt Betty after several years and >she says "My stars Tom, how you've changed!" - do you really let her >know that she's got the wrong guy? When she said this, I, as a good Theosophist who believes that there is no religion higher than truth, remind her that, since the only difference between how different I am from the individual whom she knew as Tom and how different I am from anyone else, now, before, or after, is one of degree, my still going by the same name is only appropriate to reflect the greater approximation that I am now to the individual whom she knew as Tom than to individuals whom she knows by different names, which is due only to how slowly individuals change compared to how different they are from each other at any given time. I go on to explain to her that individuality is a temporary illusion, just like every other form. Actually, this has happened only once with her, since, for some reason, she has never said the same thing to me, which is unfortunate because I enjoy explaining it to people. Come to think of it, no one has ever greeted me in this way after I have explained this to them. I guess some people just can't handle the truth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 02:18:38 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961230021837_237551466@emout08.mail.aol.com> Alan, Well, it was this big tuning fork thingy and it sort of broke up the continental shelf. Chuck the Embarrassed Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 02:19:38 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961230021937_1410313196@emout02.mail.aol.com> Ann, Everyone with ears runs away from Steve Halpern From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 02:20:53 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Happy New Year and all that Message-ID: <961230022051_943626093@emout15.mail.aol.com> Alan, glad to see you back. Give our love to King Arthur. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 02:23:31 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Lilith Message-ID: <961230022331_977180273@emout11.mail.aol.com> Lilith was quite a gal. At Methusalah's 21st birthday party she provided the-er-entertainment. Chuck the Ancient Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 02:24:39 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <961230022439_1821982962@emout09.mail.aol.com> ALLAH BE PRAISED! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 00:29:44 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Ann, > Everyone with ears runs away from Steve Halpern > But he's quite good for people who haven't had time to get their Prozac prescriptions refilled. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 02:36:39 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961230023639_677462407@emout04.mail.aol.com> John, At the parliament, Steve Halpern and Noari Rao were all over each other like puppies in heat! It was actually embarrassing, particularly when they were making out in the back of the taoist ceremony. The Chicago Tribune, which thought the entire idea of the Parliament too funny for words, had a great deal of fun with Halpern when he literally performed for an empty Grant Park. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 20:47:12 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961231025928.1d770e7c@iprolink.co.nz> Chuck >>>We'd be jealous but we know what your weather can be like in july. Do >>>the sheep move with the people or just stay in one place? >> >>You've suddenly made me nostalgic - for all those sheep allusions we used >>to hear when we were in America. Almost as strange as the overwhelming >>sense of kinship we felt with Australians we met in America. >> >>Visions of a woolly tide slurping from one end of the country to the >>other. Theosophy is good training for visualisations like this. > >I know, I just couldn't resist it. The image of a mass of sheep >stampeding across the countryside, being herded by talking pigs all of >whom sound like John Algeo was just to much to pass up. >By the way, when you were visiting Olcott, what did they have you doing? Where did YOU train in visualisation??? I was at Olcott with my wife, Jocelyn, for 3 and 1/2 months. We loved it there and came to regard many of the people as special friends. I remember one project was to gather suggestions (in the AT) from readers of the AT, about ways to improve the TS and put them together into an indexed compilation. There were some great ideas there, and such a variety of approaches. If the TS - in any country - did a half of them, it would probably take off like a rocket. Of course, you'd have to pick the right half :-) I still have the thing somewhere. Might be good to put on the net. Another thing I did was to put together a lot of ideas and research on Social Transformation which was to be a theme of the TSA for the following year. It turned into quite a big project and I wasn't able to finish it before we had to leave the country. However, I left a diskette of the stuff behind. Don't know what became of it. Then there were arduous duties at the Summer School at Lake Geneva like playing the piano on the last night and talking to LOTS of people. Got home well and truly worn out. And happy. As for the weather, we ended up having 3 summers in a row and gasping for a winter - even a New Zealand one. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 20:47:17 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Will the real Tom please stop changing for a cotton Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19961231025933.1d770dee@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to Tom and Mark [Tom] >>I suspect similarity in principle between the approximate sameness with >>which individuals are known in the span of one lifetime and the >>approximation, at the macro level, that classical physics is to Quantum >>Mechanics. [Mark] >Is this your way of saying that you agree with me? [Tom] As long as calling something by the same name as before only means that it has relatively greater continuity to what has been called the same name than to what has been called a different name, but cannot be identical to what has been called the same name, yes. ... my still going by the same name is only appropriate to reflect the greater approximation that I am now to the individual whom she knew as Tom than to individuals whom she knows by different names, which is due only to how slowly individuals change compared to how different they are from each other at any given time. .... I guess some people just can't handle the truth. [Murray] Everything is a fuzzy entity. Zoom in close enough and it disappears into a cloud of space. Stand back a bit, and it's connected to everything in sight. Go further back and, by golly, it's an individual thing. Maybe we need to try some fuzzy logic, but don't ask me what it is; I'm too hazy about it. For those who might not know, there really is such a thing as Fuzzy Logic. Whole PhD theses and university departments are springing up around it. It's even in some of our consumer electronics, we're told. And it's said to be just the thing when 2-state, binary, yes-no linear logic doesn't quite cope with reality. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 01:14:31 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: What Aunt Betty heard Message-ID: <32C78726.19B6@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >When she said this, I, as a good Theosophist who believes that there is no >religion higher than truth, remind her that, since the only difference >between how different I am from the individual whom she knew as Tom and how >different I am from anyone else, now, before, or after, is one of degree, >my still going by the same name is only appropriate to reflect the greater >approximation that I am now to the individual whom she knew as Tom than to >individuals whom she knows by different names, which is due only to how >slowly individuals change compared to how different they are from each >other at any given time. I go on to explain to her that individuality is a >temporary illusion, just like every other form. Actually, this has >happened only once with her, since, for some reason, she has never said the >same thing to me, which is unfortunate because I enjoy explaining it to >people. Come to think of it, no one has ever greeted me in this way after >I have explained this to them. I guess some people just can't handle the >truth. Thanks for clearing that up. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 11:50:35 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961230114839_371805263@emout20.mail.aol.com> Murray, Now I remember you. Gerda and I have been trying to figure out who you were because we were sure that we met you while you were there as we tended to be regular visitors. Anyway, I'm afraid the projects you were working both came to naught. The Social Transformation thing blew up in Dorothy's face because most of the groups wanted absolutely nothing to do with it and the members at large couldn't have cared less. The AT index may have been complete, but no one has heard anything about it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 22:41:25 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Adam and Lilith and Eve Message-ID: <32d34278.18974829@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 30 Dec 96 02:27:17 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >April asks: > >>Who is Lilith? > > >Rusty as I am on the Lilith legend, here it is in a nutshell: > >The word Lilith is mentioned once, I think, in the Bible. It's in Isaiah >and, according to the KJV (King James Version) is means "screech owl." >Lilith, the woman, is a legend which is said to appear in the Midrash >(interpretations and commentaries by Jewish teachers on the Torah and >Five Scrolls). Always on the lookout for any information which might further the feminist agenda, I asked about Lilith in the newsgroup alt.vampyres, where the legend is discussed, and I received the following response: >Try Isaiah 34:14. If using a direct Hebrew translation, it might >mention Lilith by name. If using a Greek/Latin/Christian translation, >the name 'lilith' will most likely be translated as the the 'night >hag' or 'night owl'. >So far as I know, Lilith is NOT mentioned in Genesis. >The story of Lilith as Adam's first wife is a recent (i.e., medieval >Talmudic) invention. >For more info about Lilith (based on references, NOT on heresay), >see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith Isaiah 34:14, in "The New American Standard Bible," is as follows: >And the desert creatures shall meet with the wolves, >The hairy goat also shall cry to its kind; >Yes, the night monster shall settle there >And shall find herself a resting place. There is footnote to "night monster," which says "Hebrew: Lilith." Lilith _does_ sound like the typical woman! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:47:40 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Adam and Lilith and Eve Message-ID: <199612310247.TAA29409@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >>So far as I know, Lilith is NOT mentioned in Genesis. That's kinda sorta true, and kinda sorta not true. Lilith is not mentioned by name, but in Genesis 1:27-29, God is said to have created "both" male and female and then commands them to "multiply." Yet, we find, in chapter 2, Adam alone. God then creates Eve as his "help meet." Thus, Lilith is said to have been one of the "both," the female, in chapter one, but had met her fate by chapter two. For those needing to explain away inconsistencies when taking the Bible literally, the Genesis passages created fodder for a rather racy story. >>The story of Lilith as Adam's first wife is a recent (i.e., medieval >>Talmudic) invention. The origin of the Lilith legend seems a point of debate. There are those who claim that the myth does not appear in the Midrash, the writings I had heard it was found in. >Lilith _does_ sound like the typical woman! Does she now! Well, on behalf of typical women everywhere - thank you! Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 22:39:09 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <32C88ADD.477F@sprynet.com> m.k. ramadoss wrote: > > Are there any lawyers on theos-l who can have a first crack at the > above? Actually, we have currently handled it by putting into our bylaws that if we are dissolved by National, then National gets the property, for the sole purpose of promoting Theosophy in New York City. But there seem to be a number of people here who think that is going too far. I am looking to see if anybody has a better solution. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 05:16:36 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19961231041636.00681830@xs4all.nl> I appreciate the views of various contributors on the theme of Karma, but I am not satisfied. In my opinion one can only address this subject if one is prepared to drop all emotional attachment to Theosophical dogma on this subject. Karma is described by HPB in the Key as: "We believe firmly in the Law of Retribution, and in the absolute justice and wisdom guiding the Law, or Karma." True Theosophy, as formulated at the foundation, is IMHO not a reiteration of thousands of years of speculation on subjects that go far beyond the scope of the present state of the human mind, but an endaevour to look at issues free of pre-conceived opinions. Theorizing gains in validity the more it rests on observations. We talk about responsibility of an individual for his behaviour. However, a person is the product of family genes, environment, fate etc. Aren't these haphazard circumstances of birth also a form of injustice ? We can sugercoat this pill by consoling ourselves by inventing the above formulated "law" of Karma and the concept of reincarnation. But should the law of parsinomy: Occam's razor, not be given consideration? Especially so, as we have little or no proof that being born under a particular set of circumstances is a result of a past life. One may wonder about the past lives of identical twins. Would those have been identical too? Latest research amongst identical twins separated at birth and raised in different families, shows that to a striking extent personality traits develop independent of surroundings or (foster) parents. (One of the few preferences that differ are the choice of partners in marriage) and are therefore solely hereditary. Another consideration is that the individual has apparently so little free choice. To be firm and try to correct one's faults may not be a merit at all but an inherited family character trait. A weakling may be the victim of a congenital defect. All this is supposed to be straightened out in the long run? But to whom justice is being done? To that temporary personality built up on the basis of coincidental circumstances who will fade out in time? To the Higher Self? One thing we can observe is that in nature survival of the fittest results in cruelty. There is awfully little consideration to the individual being, be it that an animal is shielded from having the notion of lamenting to a higher authority. It may be that our fate is the same roulette. Having bad luck in one life and good luck or not in another, but certainly not retribution. There may be other far more important circumstances acting on one's life. One of them is that of state of being, or in obsolete terms, one's vibration. One's state of mind make one attuned to similar minds. This may be a far more valid universal rule than that of an earth-like justice, or retribution. One's particular state of mind rules one's destiny and possibly one's reincarnation. In fact we may be attuned now to minds that are in the same state of "vibration". There may be other influences that act upon one's life, but there is no Karma in the traditional manner. The dogma of Karma is only blocking our view. It is a useful, yet worthless piece of consolation for people who cannot accept life as it is. If one gives credence to spiritualistic communications (and sadly hard-core Theosophists don't) souls in the hereafter consider their earthly lives as a closed book. Bad experiences are considered opportunities to improve one's level of being. In such a view there is no thought for retribution since genetic influences dictate most of one's behaviour anyhow (or should the ancestry be held responsible for passing on a particular genetic code?). Accidental circumstances may have their merits, however seemingly unjust. In fact it is the backbone of evolution. Is there any form of cosmic justice, or is the hankering for it a reflection of our unsuccesful search for justice in human society? My apologies for all ill-considered contributions in 1996. It is merely a product of my genetic make-up. With all best wishes for health and well-being in the coming year! Looking forward to your food for thought in the coming year. MICHAEL ROGGE Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:10:23 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231051023.006be68c@mail.eden.com> At 10:49 PM 12/30/96 -0500, you wrote: >m.k. ramadoss wrote: >> >> Are there any lawyers on theos-l who can have a first crack at the >> above? > > Actually, we have currently handled it by putting into our bylaws that >if we are dissolved by National, then National gets the property, for >the sole purpose of promoting Theosophy in New York City. But there seem >to be a number of people here who think that is going too far. I am >looking to see if anybody has a better solution. > > Bart Lidofsky We are not looking at the near term problems. Many of us are looking at long term problems. A concerted effort by a group like CC can achieve that in the next 20-30 years time. With the present people at National, no one expects such a thing to happen. Who can predict long term. But it is our duty that to look long term and put such safeguards as may in all probability put road blocks for any en-masse action. When the bylaws were revised, I recall it included a clause that if TSA were to lose its charter/shut down -- when in other countries it has happened, it cannot be ruled out in the USA from a common sense point of view -- the assets, I believe will go to the TIT Trust. I even suggested that, instead of laying our faith on the Trustees, we should make the International President as ex-officio. Mind you the secrecy that normally surrounds all money matters, is a real problem as 1900 letter seems to indicate. Let me give you two examples. About a year ago, when the bylaws changes were taking place, I sent in a request to John Algeo asking for a copy of the trust document as well as the current bylaws. I am yet get it and it is all most a year. Whom/what are they protecting? I am not a newbee and am a long term member of TS. To this day, I have never taken a single penny as direct benefit or even reimbursement, such as travel, telephone calls etc. from TSA. Always, I have contributed to TS and TSA, may be not in the scale of Kern foundation, but still within my means. The second incident was when I received the solicitation for donation some time back from TSA, with matching from Kern Foundation, one of the items mentioned in the solicitation was Internet. I sent in a request to John Algeo inquiring if there is a budget showing what portion of the funds are to go to what activity, and I have not received any information. It is December 30 today and tomorrow will be the last day to write any contributions and deduct it in 1996 tax return. I think that it is not unreasonable for donors to inquire where the money is going to be spent. I will leave to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. On the first para, it is a fact that J. Krishnamurti for some time when he was alive and Krishnamurti Trusts owned the Ojai and Adyar properties, in effect he was prevented from using them for his talks. So a future TIT Trustees may interpret anything as Theosophy and hold on to all the assets and no one will know what is happening. If it could happen to JK when he was alive, it can happen to any Trust. Until Sloss' book came out making Krishnamurti's physical relationship with Rosalind public, even most long time members in the USA and abroad never knew about the details. After Sloss' book hit the shelves, we are seeing more details coming out, some of them surprising and some shocking. I did provide a lot of the details on the above to John Algeo for his information. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:08:21 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 783 Message-ID: <32C89FC5.2A86@sprynet.com> Tim Maroney wrote: > > >Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you > >do to keep something like this from happening? > > Put in a clause forbidding property transfers except at fair market value > according to licensed appraisers? But the new organization CALLS itself by the same name. It just has nothing to do with the old organization, except paying lip service to the 3 objects. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:13:11 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: What is Theosophy? Message-ID: <32C8A0E7.220@sprynet.com> Edgar "Mauricio" Rivera wrote: > - What is Theosophy? I have read Webster's description so far but seems > to differ a little bit from what I hear in this list. As I have mentioned before, the term "Webster's description" is totally meaningless. Anybody can write a dictionary, and quite legally call it "Webster's". However, I would define "theosophy" for you as the search for the basic truth or truths underlying science, religion, and philosophy. > - How is Theosophy differs from other philosophies (i.e. Yoga, > Rosicruscians, Brahmanism, alchemy, gnostics, etc) in a basic way. The others are belief systems. Theosophy is a method for building a belief system. > - The Headquarters in Pasadena. Is this a place that I can go and visit? The headquarters of one of the several Theosohpical Societies is in Pasedena. There are several others, including the original Theosophical Society, which is headquartered in Adyar, India, and which has American National Headquarters in Wheaton, IL. Both may be visited. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 23:21:20 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231052120.006c504c@mail.eden.com> At 11:52 PM 12/30/96 -0500, you wrote: >I appreciate the views of various contributors on the theme of Karma, but I >am not satisfied. Let me add my 2 cents. As far as unseen things are concerned, all we can discuss are various hypotheses. What seems reasonable to one, may not be so to another. Third person may not even care how some of these things work. When we look around the world and see all the mindless killings and exploitation that goes on everywhere every minute, a little thinking on the part of the world and a little loving consideration for to our sisters/brothers, IMHO, will go a long way to do a lot of good. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:28:35 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <32C8A483.CB8@sprynet.com> JRC wrote: > > Let me give you all a practical problem, and tell me how you would > > solve it (I will ignore any messages on the topic of how you would NOT > > solve it). > >[snip] > > Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you > > do to keep something like this from happening? > > Bart ... > A couple questions first ... > 1. Is this an actual problem a Lodge is facing, or is this question being > asked to try to make a point (i.e., justify Wheaton's actions). Actually, I am currently in charge of the upkeep of the bylaws at the New York Lodge (having inherited the position from Emily Sellon). The Wheaton solution was suggested to me by John Sellon and John Algeo. It is a very real problem, and we were lucky not to have it happen before the bylaws were changed. In any case, I wrote up a proposed amendment to the bylaws allowing National to take over the property in such a case, with the proviso that any proceeds from any conversion remain in New York City for the furtherance of Theosophy here. My major objection to the changed bylaws at National (and I am actively lobbying to eliminate it) is the fact that a simple majority of the Board of Directors is required to dissolve a Lodge (2/3 is required to throw out a member!). My suggestion is unaminity minus one to throw out a Lodge. This would effectively keep National from arbitrarily dissolving a Lodge, while put in protection if it is a real outside takeover. Yet, many seem to be opposed to this solution, so I am asking, is there anything better? Not a better way of going about getting a solution, but a better solution. If I can be convinced of one, I will propose it. There was a secondary purpose in posing this question, which is to show that the problem is quite real, and the solution is difficult. > 2. What are the current Lodge bylaws govering the use and disposition of > assets? Previously, all that was required was a majority of Board Members (and it had to be legal). > Lodge by a majority membership, but quite another to have bylaws so vague > that its assets could easily be transferred to *another organization*. Not if the "other organization" BECOMES the New York Theosophical Society, and then secedes from National. > This, by the way, has been used as the justification, by Wheaton, for > giving itself the ability to step in and sieze the resources of Lodges. If you read the National Bylaws, that is not precisely correct. First of all, a Lodge does have the right to defend itself from a dissolution, and a six-month grace period to alter itself to conform to National's request (or to convince the directors that it does not need to). Second of all, the funds and property must be used within the locality of the Lodge; Wheaton has no right, even under the current bylaws, to appropriate the property for itself. > Say Scientology, or the Christian Coalition (that, in fact, *has* .. > that once the CC has control of Wheaton, it has control of the assets of > the Lodges. This, IMO, is a *far* more severe danger than that of an > individual Lodge here and there being threatened. Do you have any suggestions for protections National should put into place? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:40:51 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Questions about Adam & Eve Message-ID: <32C8A763.3E6F@sprynet.com> Mark Kusek wrote: > > Couldn't the condeming pall of "original sin" and the misogynistic > attitude towards women via Eve be a later, misinterpretive political > usurpation? Note that "original sin" is a Christian, not a Jewish concept. In Judaism, the general belief is that the tree of knowledge had no special powers; it taught Adam and Eve that it was physically possible to disobey the word of God. God then made them partners in creation (read the curses as blessings: By the sweat of your brow, YOU SHALL EAT BREAD. In pain YOU WILL BEAR CHILDREN). Now, think of it as a theosophical allegory, with the serpent as the 4th root race, handing its monads over to the 5th root race, who, in the process, become sentient (knowing that they will die). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 01:03:10 -0500 From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 789 Message-ID: <961231010309_1524415676@emout15.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 96-12-31 00:15:56 EST, you write: After Sloss' book hit the shelves, we are seeing more details coming out, some of them surprising and some shocking. What further details? Don't hold back! I'm all ears (or eyes in this case). LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:40:42 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231064042.0068d248@mail.eden.com> At 12:31 AM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote: > >> This, by the way, has been used as the justification, by Wheaton, for >> giving itself the ability to step in and sieze the resources of Lodges. > > If you read the National Bylaws, that is not precisely correct. First >of all, a Lodge does have the right to defend itself from a dissolution, >and a six-month grace period to alter itself to conform to National's >request (or to convince the directors that it does not need to). Second >of all, the funds and property must be used within the locality of the >Lodge; Wheaton has no right, even under the current bylaws, to >appropriate the property for itself. > There are practical problems with the six-month grace period. First of all when whole sections has been demitted with no prior notice, yes International President, can do it with a stroke of pen -- not that it is going to happen with the current leadership -- may happen with a future leadership. Secondly, the so call convincing the Directors, while sounding good, let us look at it from a practical point of view. Let us say that the local directors write to the National Directors why they should not shut down the lodge, in all probability, they are not going to back down -- it is normal human behaviour. The only other avenue for local lodge to defend itself is to bring a law suit against national decision. Any lawyer will tell you that the party with a deep pocket is going to prevail in the long run. TSA has millions of dollars of assets in TIT and it can and will use it to defend -- they have to defend themselves once there is a law suit. The local lodge may have real estate, but not cash to defend themselves. I do not know how large cash assets that NYTS has to defend itself in such a contigency. Secondly, the statement that the money shall be spent for local TS activities. The statement can be interpreted very widely. "National Approved Lecturers" (and their spouses) (even now some of the spouses do travel to Lodges with National Lecturers) can travel First Class to NY, stay in most expensive hotels and enjoy themselves and those who are on their side. Again, these individuals who visit for Theosophical activity, may be doing lip service, since the real purpose of their visit may be connected with other *business* or *religious* or *spiritual* activity by disguising the visit as for Theosophical purposes. All these could be justified as Theosophical activity and can be justified. Also the National Directors are likely to be very very secretive about disclosing how much money they have and how it is being spent. There is no requirement that they disclose it to the ordinary members. Accountability, must not be based on *trust*, but built-in openness and requirement to disclose. When safeguards are drawn up, we need to look at long term and potentially extereme scenario. What we are all trying to do is to protect the local interests when most of us may be dead and gone, may be 30 - 50 years from now. I am just presenting the above, from a lay man's common sense. Since I am far away, and has no ax to grind (direct or indirect) -- personal, leadership or political or financial -- I can be more direct, critical and objective. Any way thanks for your forthright and open discussion of the issues which all of us have our hearts in. MKR PS: One of the major problems we have in TSA, is that there is no local input or brain stroming on some of these far reaching fundamental problems and issues. When the bylaws were changed it was *disguised* as simple house cleaning -- which everyone knows is not. > Bart Lidofsky > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 00:43:08 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 789 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231064308.006be10c@mail.eden.com> I have just been asked by a subscriber in listening-l, the Krishnamurti maillist, to post a summary. I hope to find time to write it up and post it here and on listening-l. MKR At 01:06 AM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-12-31 00:15:56 EST, you write: > > > After Sloss' book hit the shelves, we are seeing more details coming out, >some of > them surprising and some shocking. > >What further details? Don't hold back! I'm all ears (or eyes in this case). > >LunarPitri > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Dec 31 02:09:11 1996 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <199612310709.CAA10749@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Sun, 29 Dec 96, John Straughn wrote: >>The closest I may be able to come to >>agreeing with her is to say that selfishness *was* an inevitable side- >>effect to self-consciousness. > >It is impossible not to be selfish. Unselfishness is not a repudiation of >self-interest, but is an identification of self-interest with the interests >of others. Perhaps I should define selfishness (my definition). When someone pursues their own interests without consideration of another's, particularly at the expense of others, they are being selfish. Self-interest is perfectly fine, that is unavoidable, I agree. However, I believe that a truer definition of unselfishness is considering others' interests and well-being before pursuing and upholding one's own. And if one's personal self-interest harms another person in ANY way (intellectually, emotionally, physically, etc.), it would be "selfish" to continue to pursue the interest in question. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:46:58 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karmic Psychology Message-ID: <32dfc24c.51547606@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 31 Dec 96, John Straughn wrote: >When someone pursues >their own interests without consideration of another's, particularly at the >expense of others, they are being selfish. Self-interest is perfectly fine, >that is unavoidable, I agree. Selfishness is only a vice if it is unfair to others. Even the author of "The Virtue of Selfishness" considered injustice to be wrong. >However, I believe that a truer definition of >unselfishness is considering others' interests and well-being before >pursuing and upholding one's own. To put others ahead of self is what I call "doormat-ism." Objectivists commonly accuse Kant's saying that duty should be put ahead of self as his meaning that others should be put ahead of self, but I believe they are two distinctly different concepts, and I find it hard to believe that Kant, who was mentioned favorably many times by HPB in "The Secret Doctrine," really believed that putting others first was the ideal. I consider justice, or duty, which includes self-interest and the interests of others, to be the ideal. Olcott said that he put duty first in all his actions. >And if one's personal self-interest harms another >person in ANY way (intellectually, emotionally, physically, etc.), it would be >"selfish" to continue to pursue the interest in question. All actions uniquely affect others both negatively and positively. If an action harms others more than it helps oneself, it is wrong. But to apply the rule of refraining from doing anything which might hurt anyone in any way would lead to complete inactivity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 96 00:29:17 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: fighting off hostile takeovers Message-ID: <199612310830.AAA14144@scv2.apple.com> >> >Now say you were writing the bylaws of the organization. What would you >> >do to keep something like this from happening? >> Put in a clause forbidding property transfers except at fair market value >> according to licensed appraisers? > But the new organization CALLS itself by the same name. It just has >nothing to do with the old organization, except paying lip service to >the 3 objects. I don't think there's anything that can be done on a by-law level to combat doctrinal drift among the membership -- even a conspiratorial form such as you describe. What can be done seems to be mostly in the informal area. For instance, why is it that a group can attract more members whose goal is to selfishly co-opt its property than members who are sincerely dedicated to the existing organizational goals? Have the organizational goals become rigid to the point where they have ceased to appeal to a modern audience? What can be done to attract more members to the real goals of the organization, and to present those goals in a current, relevant and vital form? I don't mean to criticize your organization with comments like these. I really hope this is helpful to you. It seems that the situation you are describing could only happen in a critical situation of declining membership. At this point the root causes of declining membership need to be addressed. If sincere membership continues to fall, then yes, you will be wide open to hostile takeovers, and there's not much you can do about that. At some point the infiltrators reach the point where they can amend the by-laws, and then what happens to any formal defense? Freemasonry in the United States currently finds itself in a similar position. They have not been able to mount a very good answer to the problem of declining membership, though some reformist actions are being taken such as the recognition of Prince Hall. Is there anything that Theosophy could do -- as one example off the top of my head, embracing the growing goddess-spirituality movement and offering temple space to its groups -- to increase its appeal without watering down its principles? Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 21:57:53 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970101041009.118fd6e2@iprolink.co.nz> Chuck, >Now I remember you. Gerda and I have been trying to figure out who you >were because we were sure that we met you while you were there as we >tended to be regular visitors. While I can scan the faces I remember from the time, I have no way of knowing which were you and Gerda, now. Oh, well; they'll be there, somewhere deep in my subconscious, working away - like beer or something !-) >Anyway, I'm afraid the projects you were working both came to naught. >The Social Transformation thing blew up in Dorothy's face because most of >the groups wanted absolutely nothing to do with it and the members at >large couldn't have cared less. C'est la vie, I suppose, but it seems to have been genuinely hard to think of positive things to do, that work. Still, the Fieldworker idea caught on in New Zealand, partly as a result of info. I brought back from America, and is still going, in rather modified form. Maybe it's like farm animals - it's more important to actually talk to them than *how* you talk to them, according to some research I read about once. Extrapolate that to the TS if you will .... >The AT index may have been complete, but no one has heard anything about >it. They should. It's quite a resource, for those who like resources. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 21:57:57 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970101041013.118ffcc6@iprolink.co.nz> Michael >I appreciate the views of various contributors on the theme of Karma, but >I am not satisfied. That's the best way to be, I reckon. >In my opinion one can only address this subject if one is prepared to drop >all emotional attachment to Theosophical dogma on this subject. In my opinion, a considerable wall of thought has built up around the subject - some of it not very helpful. To break free and start walking, is the only way to go .... >Karma is described by HPB in the Key as: >"We believe firmly in the Law of Retribution, and in the absolute justice >and wisdom guiding the Law, or Karma." It's what she meant by these words that we have to decide. The overtones (and even more important, *undertones*) of language 120 years old may not always serve the truth, whatever it is, that the concept of karma is trying to point to. >True Theosophy, as formulated at the foundation, is IMHO .... an endaevour >to look at issues free of pre-conceived opinions. I strongly agree. The first thing is to become aware of those preconceptions and then, the first step has already been taken. You bring up several considerations in relation to karma. To my mind, this is excellent, the very thing we should all be doing; actively looking for points of agreement *and* those of disagreement with the concept of karma (or anything else) we currently hold. >We talk about responsibility of an individual for his behaviour. However, >a person is the product of family genes, environment, fate etc. Aren't >these haphazard circumstances of birth also a form of injustice ? In my opinion, to be of any real value, our idea of karma needs to be wide enough to embrace all the phenomena of the physical world as well as any of the inner realms. That means that genetics, environment, and chance, all have to be part of the overall picture, not pieces that stick out on their own or get brushed to one side. Where events, intention, meaning and experience coexist in a multi-leveled energy system of life, the physical sometimes being a precipitation of more inward "causes", and sometimes producing more inward forms of energy. Ie energy and influence flowing around, not only on each individual level but between levels. And we have to accept, IMO, that some things are not necessarily specially caused by some grand thing in the past. They can arise from relatively trivial and local (space and time-wise) situations, and even, thinking of the chaos/order pair, out of no single identifiable cause at all. >Especially so, as we have little or no proof that being born under a >particular set of circumstances is a result of a past life. Such proof, in the ordinary sense, is rather unlikely, but we can still ask if the concept of karma we are exploring matches reality as we observe it (as you said) and is internally consistent, etc. >One may wonder about the past lives of identical twins. Would those have >been identical too? Latest research amongst identical twins separated at >birth and raised in different families, shows that to a striking extent >personality traits develop independent of surroundings or (foster) >parents. (One of the few preferences that differ are the choice of >partners in marriage) and are therefore solely hereditary. I would say that physical heredity is not the only possible factor. It must have its place of course, but again, if there are multiple levels of reality and they are connected, then heredity must be embedded in a multi-faceted reality which flows and becomes as a whole. >Another consideration is that the individual has apparently so little free >choice. To be firm and try to correct one's faults may not be a merit at >all but an inherited family character trait. Why should not both be true? In due proportion, of course. We are not cut off or entirely separate from our family, anyway. It could be a flow of "merit" or anything else that flows from one generation to the next, for each to work with and transform to its best ability. So much depends on your concept of what it is to be an individual. For most of us, most of the time, it may seem cut and dried, but it is my belief that a widening of consciousness, which we are all courting in one way or another, can bring about a significant change in what we consider ourselves to be, and a radical change in the scope of that "me". As I've said before, it can shift the foundation of the whole question to the point that it has to be put a very different way. >Having bad luck in one life and good luck or not in another, but certainly >not retribution. I think retribution is a lousy word for it - typical 19th century vocabulary and outlook. The sooner we leave it behind, the better. There is a sense, of course, in which it appears to be true, but it's buried in the negative and anthropomorphic associations. >One's state of mind make one attuned to similar minds. Yes, indeed. >There may be other influences that act upon one's life, but there is no >Karma in the traditional manner. The dogma of Karma is only blocking our >view. It is a useful, yet worthless piece of consolation for people who >cannot accept life as it is. The traditional manner, as you seem to be perceiving it, and which I am well aware of for myself, certainly needs to be left behind. The faster, the better. As it stands, it is little consolation indeed, being so poorly founded in reality. But that doesn't mean there's nothing beyond ... > ... since >genetic influences dictate most of one's behaviour anyhow (or should the >ancestry be held responsible for passing on a particular genetic code?). Connectedness, flow and multiple levels all interacting, help to resolve this apparent question, IMO. Sorry not to be explaining in more detail. >Is there any form of cosmic justice, or is the hankering for it a >reflection of our unsuccesful search for justice in human society? Pehaps we humans have to look a bit deeper at what we consider justice to be, and what it could possibly mean when taken out of the hands of human beings. What can we think of? Balance, connectedness, appropriateness, embedded love, wide-ranging consciousness, impartiality, .... . Are these properties of not only the ideal human being, but also of the amazingly vast energy system we live in? In some way, I suspect they are. It boils down again to the different forms consciousness can operate within, I guess. >My apologies for all ill-considered contributions in 1996. >It is merely a product of my genetic make-up. I enjoyed your contributions. Pehaps the word "mere" is one of the merest words around! Turn it on itself now and then - like doubt; remember always to turn doubt on doubt itself when it seems to be getting too uppity! :-) Thanks for your best wishes. The same to you. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:11:58 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: "New" Mahatma Letter Message-ID: <199612311811.AA08208@lafn.org> [The word "New" is in quotes because half of this letter will be new to most theosophists. Part of it appeared (as two letters) in LETTERS FROM THE MASTERS OF THE WISDOM, First Series, pages 201-04. It was written by KH in 1884 (after August) to Laura C. Holloway. The new portions are surrounded by {{{triple curly brackets}}}.] When you are older in your chela life you will not be surprised if no notice is taken of your wishes, and even birthdays and other feasts and fasts. For you will have then learned to put a proper value on the carcass-sheath of the Self and all its relations. To the profane a birthday is but a twelve-months stride toward the grave. When each new year marks for you a step of evolution, all will be ready with their congratulations; there will be something real to felicitate you upon. But, so far, you are not even one year old -- and you would be treated as an adult! Try to learn to stand firm on your legs, child, before you venture walking. It is because you are so young and ignorant in the ways of occult life that you are so easily forgiven. But you have to attend your ways and put ----- and her caprices and whims far in the background before the expiration of the *first year* of your life as a chela if you would see the dawn of the second year. Now, the lake in the mountain heights of your being is one day a tossing waste of waters, as the gust of caprice or temper sweeps through your soul; the next a mirror as they subside and peace reigns in the "house of life." One day you win a step forward; the next you fall two back. Chelaship admits none of these transitions; its prime and constant qualification is a calm, even, contemplative state of mind (not the mediumistic passivity) fitted to receive psychic impressions from without, and to transmit one's own from within. The mind can be made to work with electric swiftness in a high excitement; but the Buddhi -- *never*. To its clear region, calm must ever reign. It is foolish to be thinking of outward Upasika in this connection. She is not a "chela". {{{You wish confirmation of what has been told you about the cause and effect of your transfer from London to Elberfeld. Take it. The fact is as explained.}}} You cannot acquire psychic power until the causes of psychic debility are removed. {{{Your trouble is, that you "cannot take in" the doctrine of shells.}}} You have scarcely learned the elements of self-control in psychism; your vivid creative imagination evokes illusive creatures, coined the instant before in the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself. As yet you have not acquired the exact method of detecting the false from the true, since you have not yet comprehended the doctrine of shells. {{{Nevertheless it is not unreasonable emotionalism that can remove a *fact* from Nature. Your ex-friend *is a shell*, and one more dangerous for you than ten other shells -- for his feeling for you was intense and earthly. The little of the spirituality in it is now in Devachan -- and there remains in Kama-Loka but the dross he tried so vainly to repress. And now listen and remember: Whether you *sit* for friends in America or London, or elsewhere as medium -- though you now hate the word -- or seeress, or revelator, since you have scarcely learned the elements of self- control, in psychism, you must suffer bad consequences. You draw to yourself the nearest and strongest influences -- often evil -- and absorb them, and are psychically stifled or narcotised by them. The airs become peopled with resuscitated phantoms. They give you false tokens, misleading revelations, deceptive images. Your vivid creative fancy evokes illusive Gurus and chelas, and puts into their mouths words coined the instant before in the mint of your mind, unknown to yourself. The false appear as real, as the true, and you have no *exact method* of detection since you are yet prone to force your communications to agree with your preconceptions. Mr. Sinnett against his own wish and unconsciously to himself has attracted about him a cloud of elementaries whose power is such over him as to make him miserably unhappy for the moment and shake his constance. He is actually in danger of losing all he has gained, and of cutting himself off from me forever. Worse than all -- he has severed himself from his protecting shield, his sweet child, through whom I could have acted (and have done so for a long time) to shelter him from the malignant influences about him. The pure boy is far away and no direct influence of mine can reach him. I cannot help him; he must help himself. I shall rejoice if he conquers; for by this practical experience his intuitions will have become sharpened and help him to distinguish truth from falsehood. At this moment he is enwrapped in a mist of maya, and whenever he approached you, you too were lost in it. I have denied -- black on white -- communicating with him through you. I have never done so, and this I repeat; but he clings to his unwholesome illusion and by implication makes me a *falsifier*. Poor friend, of India, to have been told such a great deal and -- learnt so little! (You may copy this and send *her* this if you like.)}}} How can you know the real from the unreal, the true from the false? Only by self-development. How get that? By first carefully guarding yourself against the causes of self-deception, {{{and chief among them, the holding of intercourse with elementaries as before, whether to please friends(?), or gratify your own curiosity.}}} And then by spending a certain fixed hour or hours each day, all alone in self-contemplation, writing, reading, the purification of your motives, the study and correction of your faults, the planning of your work in the external life. These hours should be sacredly reserved for this purpose, and no one, not even your most intimate friend or friends, should be with you then. Little by little your sight will clear, you will find the mists pass away, your interior faculties strengthen, your attraction toward us gain force, and certainty replace doubts. But beware of seeking or leaning too much upon direct authority. *Our* ways are not your ways. We rarely show any outward signs by which to be recognized or sensed. Do you think H.S.O., and Mohini, and Mad. Gebhard have been counselling you entirely without prompting from us? As for U., you love her more than you respect her advice. You do not realize that when speaking of, or as from us, she dares not mix up her own personal opinions with those she tells you are ours. None of us would dare do so, for we have a code that is not to be transgressed. Learn, child, *to catch a hint through whatever agency it may be given*. {{{You were told ere now *never to touch* Mohini; you have done so out of sheer malice and brought upon yourself the displeasure of one of our chiefs.}}} "Sermons may be preached even through stones." {{{You will not be unwatched and uncared for, but you have to attract not to repel us and our chelas. Mohini's ideas about "judgement" etc., may sound unpleasant to the ears of Miss Arundale; but she has to accept things as *he* does if she would be taken notice of, at all.}}} Do not be too eager for "instructions" {{{*any of you.*}}} You will always get what you need as you shall deserve them, but no more than you deserve or are able to assimilate. {{{*Your book is a good test in this direction.*}}} And now the battle is set in array: fight a good fight {{{even with your old friend, General H.[oward}}}] and may you win. K.H. -- Nicholas <> am455@lafn.org <> Los Angeles <> The wisdom of Buddha is in the minds of all beings; enshrouded with false thoughts, they are not aware of it. The great compassion of all Buddhas induces them to renounce false thoughts, so that wisdom can manifest and benefit all beings. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:21:43 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Adam and Lilith and Eve Message-ID: <199612311341.IAA23419@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > There is footnote to "night monster," which says "Hebrew: Lilith." > > Lilith _does_ sound like the typical woman! I had no idea that the myth of Lilith had such a historical and interesting background. If there is anyone here interested in Sophia, take a look at the Societas Gnostica Norvegia website There is a a new section on the page called "The Mysteries of Sophia", devoted to the Gnostic goddess of Wisdom. http://home.sn.no/~noetic/mystsoph.htm In the Article section: one article entitled "The Redemption of Sophia", dealing with the "fallen" aspect of Sophia http://home.sn.no/~noetic/redempsoph.htm A Scriptures section, which has all the scriptures mentioning Sophia, or dealing with the concept of Sophia. http://home.sn.no/~noetic/ and a "Sophia Bibliography" http://home.sn.no/bib Happy New Year to All! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:07:47 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <199612311416.JAA01826@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > Secondly, the statement that the money shall be spent for local TS > activities. The statement can be interpreted very widely. "National Approved > Lecturers" (and their spouses) (even now some of the spouses do travel to > Lodges with National Lecturers) can travel First Class to NY, stay in most > expensive hotels and enjoy themselves and those who are on their side. > Again, these individuals who visit for Theosophical activity, may be doing > lip service, since the real purpose of their visit may be connected with > other *business* or *religious* or *spiritual* activity by disguising the > visit as for Theosophical purposes. All these could be justified as > Theosophical activity and can be justified. Also the National Directors are > likely to be very very secretive about disclosing how much money they have > and how it is being spent. There is no requirement that they disclose it to > the ordinary members. Accountability, must not be based on *trust*, but > built-in openness and requirement to disclose. > Just a note about my knowledge of one well-known speaker that travels to Chicago for area lectures. That person stays at the luxurious and fabulously well-appointed Olcott in Wheaton and eats in their gourmet basement cafeteria. Occasionally, some of his friends get together and take him out to a restaurant, with their own money. One study group member drove out to Wheaton, a far western suburb, picked him up at Olcott, brought him to the study group on the North Side of Chicago and then delivered him back to Olcott when his lecture was over. The study group member was using his own car and maybe TSA paid for gas, I don't know. If lecturers and others are getting the aboved mentioned perks in New York City, I think we're getting gypped here in Illinois. : -) -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:16:47 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <199612311416.JAA01832@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Murray Stentiford > Michael > > >In my opinion one can only address this subject if one is prepared to drop > >all emotional attachment to Theosophical dogma on this subject. > > In my opinion, a considerable wall of thought has built up around the > subject - some of it not very helpful. To break free and start walking, is > the only way to go .... > Perhaps those who initially join TS, encounter Thesophical dogma and not having had enough time to be emotionally attached to it, simply walk *around* it. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:41:46 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231154146.006be4dc@mail.eden.com> At 09:29 AM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: M K Ramadoss >> >> Secondly, the statement that the money shall be spent for local >TS >> activities. The statement can be interpreted very widely. "National >Approved >> Lecturers" (and their spouses) (even now some of the spouses do travel to >> Lodges with National Lecturers) can travel First Class to NY, stay in >most >> expensive hotels and enjoy themselves and those who are on their side. >> Again, these individuals who visit for Theosophical activity, may be >doing >> lip service, since the real purpose of their visit may be connected with >> other *business* or *religious* or *spiritual* activity by disguising the >> visit as for Theosophical purposes. All these could be justified as >> Theosophical activity and can be justified. Also the National Directors >are >> likely to be very very secretive about disclosing how much money they >have >> and how it is being spent. There is no requirement that they disclose it >to >> the ordinary members. Accountability, must not be based on *trust*, but >> built-in openness and requirement to disclose. >> >Just a note about my knowledge of one well-known speaker that travels to >Chicago for area lectures. That person stays at the luxurious and >fabulously well-appointed Olcott in Wheaton and eats in their gourmet >basement >cafeteria. Occasionally, some of his >friends get together and take him out to a restaurant, with their own >money. >One study group member drove out to Wheaton, a far western suburb, >picked him up at Olcott, brought him to the study group on the North Side >of >Chicago and then delivered him back to Olcott when his lecture was over. >The study group member was using his own car and maybe TSA paid for gas, I >don't know. >If lecturers and others are getting the aboved mentioned perks in New York >City, I think we're getting gypped here in Illinois. : -) > >-AEB Glad you posted the msg. I am *not* saying it is happening now. It can happen at a future date. I should have been more clear on this. As for spouses traveling with lecturers, we have had lecturers whose spouses accompanied them. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:42:11 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <32C93453.6801@sprynet.com> Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > If lecturers and others are getting the aboved mentioned perks in New York > City, I think we're getting gypped here in Illinois. : -) The Lodge's guest room (about 8 x 15 feet, with a day bed) is currently unavailable. Guests either provide their own accommodations or stay with a member (usually Ed Abdill, who generously provides guest space, or John Sellon). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:38:58 -0800 (PST) From: James S Yungkans Subject: What is theosophy Message-ID: <199612311738.JAA15539@sure.net> >Edgar "Mauricio" Rivera wrote: >> - What is Theosophy? I have read Webster's description so far but seems >> to differ a little bit from what I hear in this list. and Bart states > . . . I would define "theosophy" for you as the search for the basic >truth or truths underlying science, religion, and philosophy. >(Edgar) >> - How is Theosophy differs from other philosophies (i.e. Yoga, >> Rosicruscians, Brahmanism, alchemy, gnostics, etc) in a basic way. >(Bart) > The others are belief systems. Theosophy is a method for building a >belief system. > The difinitive answer can be found in Blavatsky's writings (AKA those 'Black and Blue' volumes called 'Colected Writings'): (1879) "What is Theosophy" Theosophy is, then, the archaic Wisdom-Religion, the esoteric doctorine once known in every ancient country having claims to civilisation. This "Wisdom" all the old writings show us as an emanation of the divine Principle...under this designation, all of the ancient philosophers of the east and west, the Hierophants of old egypt, the Rishis of Aryavarta, the Theodidaktoi of Greece, included all knoledge of things occult and essentially divine...Every Theosophist, then, holding to a theory of the Deity "which has not revelation, but an inspiration of his own for its basis," may accept accept any of the above definitions or belong to any of the above religions, and yet remain in within the boundries of Theosophy. For the latter is belief in the deity as the ALL, the source of all existance, the infinite that cannot be comprenended or known, the universe alone revealing "It", or, as some prefer it, Him" (1886) "Original Program of the Theosophical Society" Theosophy is an all-embrasing Science; many are the ways leading to it, as numerous in fact as its definitions, which begin by the sublime, during the day of Ammonious Saccas, and ended by the ridiculus - in Webster's Dictionary. Theosophy must not represent merely a collection of moral verities, a bundle of metaphysical ethics epitomized in theoretical dissertations. Theosophy must be made practical, and has, therefore, to be disencumbered of useless discussion...It has to find objective expression in an all-embrasing code of life throughly impregnated with its spirit - the spirit of mutual tollerance, charity and love. (1888) "The Theosophical Society" But though Theosophy means Divine Wisdom, it implies nothing resembling belief in a personal god. It is not "the wisdom of God," but "divine" wisdom. (1888) "Is Theosophy a Religion" Theosophy is not a religion, we say, but Religion itself, the one bond of unity, which is so universal and all embrasing that no man, as no speck - from gods and mortal down to animals, the blade of grass and atom - can be outside of it's light. Therefore any organization or body of that name must nessasarily be a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "The degree of success or failure are the landmarks the masters have to follow, as they will constitute the barriers placed with your own hands between yourselves and those you have asked to be your teachers. The nearer your approach to the goal contemplated - the shorter the distance between the student and the Master." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:45:35 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <961231132356_1089057484@emout17.mail.aol.com> Murray, Gerda is a very short, blond woman with a round face and glasses. I am a medium short round man with dark hair, a prominant nose and glasses and we were known at that time as the Chuck and Gerda Show around Olcott usually mentioned in hushed whispers with a sort of "what are they doing now?" response. Anyway, the fieldwork idea is still in practice, though they use a different name for it now, I think. The groups liked the idea of speakers, but there were some very funny things that happened, like the time they flew Tim Boyd somewhere to talk to six people and when they figured out how much it cost per person the HQ folks were not happy at all. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:04:38 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <199612311904.LAA13976@palrel1.hp.com> Michael wrote: (With portions snipped out) > I appreciate the views of various contributors on the theme of Karma, but I > am not satisfied. > One thing we can observe is that in nature survival of the fittest results > in cruelty. There is awfully little consideration to the individual being, > be it that an animal is shielded from having the notion of lamenting to a > higher authority. > There may be other influences that act upon one's life, but there is no > Karma in the traditional manner. The dogma of Karma is only blocking our > view. It is a useful, yet worthless piece of consolation for people who > cannot accept life as it is. > Accidental circumstances may have their merits, however seemingly unjust. In > fact it is the backbone of evolution. > Is there any form of cosmic justice, or is the hankering for it a reflection > of our unsuccesful search for justice in human society? I am new, so I haven't seen the early parts of this thread. Michael, I appreciate your taking a serious look at the concept of karma. The wisdom of the ages, though in my opinion of inestimable value, was not meant to be swallowed without being digested. Without internalizing our spiritial heritage, we can't very apply it. But I think there is addition that must go with your conception of karma: intentional suffering or the taking on of other's karma. This concept is much more developed in the West where it was exemplified by Jesus and by a tradition of saintly suffering, though we find it in the East also. Simply put, we are responsible for our brothers and sisters. Even though we may not have violated a spiritual law, we can still assume something of another's karmic penalties to help him back on his feet. Many human associations involve willingly (and gladly) assuming the burdens of another. A parent will sacrifice for his or her child, a husband or wife for his or her spouse, and friend for a friend. Extend this to our karmic covenant in being born into an environment with certain parents or friends: We may not have "earned" the genetic load we inherit from our parents, but we can agree to assume it for their benefit and backwards "unto the third and fourth generation" as the Bible says. A related concept to intentional suffering ... Until we have internalized a lesson, a certain amount of pain is also necessary to light the lamp of illumination. This is the lesson of the cross. A certain amount of pain is built into our world, as the allegory of the fall from Eden portrays. There is no more focused intensity of attention than in pain. Many, many examples of a person's psychic gifts being opened after some tremendous ordeal of pain. I could give you a dozen references. I also love animals, so your remarks on cruelty in nature do demand an answer. Being a sacrificial kingdom, I don't find it much of a stretch to think that our animal companions also assumed something of the heaviness of our non-Edenic world. They lend a hidden strength that I fear we will lose if we cause their extinction through loss of habitat. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:44:14 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <199612312046.PAA26033@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > Glad you posted the msg. I am *not* saying it is happening now. > It can happen at a future date. > I should have been more clear on this. > > As for spouses traveling with lecturers, we have had lecturers > whose spouses accompanied them. > Yes, abuses are possible in any organization. I'd just thought I'd add my eyewitness account of the frugality regarding one particular guest speaker at Olcott. A very Happy New Year to all, -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:08:07 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231220807.006b0ec8@mail.eden.com> At 01:47 PM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote: >Murray, >Gerda is a very short, blond woman with a round face and glasses. I am a >medium short round man with dark hair, a prominant nose and glasses and we >were known at that time as the Chuck and Gerda Show around Olcott usually >mentioned in hushed whispers with a sort of "what are they doing now?" >response. > >Anyway, the fieldwork idea is still in practice, though they use a different >name for it now, I think. The groups liked the idea of speakers, but there >were some very funny things that happened, like the time they flew Tim Boyd >somewhere to talk to six people and when they figured out how much it cost >per person the HQ folks were not happy at all. > >Chuck the Heretic In mid 1970s, they had travelling lecturers - not shuttling ones and in one instance a new member joined TS on account of a *free* *Public* *Lecture* followed by *free* private consultation. The member could not believe that the *lecturer* would not accept any fee for the time that was spent counseling. This member later became the most active member of a lodge in a large city and was so for nearly 20 years when the member became quite old to carry on the work. The most interesting thing was that this lecturer who travelled all over USA, is *not* a PhD and I think does not even have a degree. Thought some of you may be interested. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:08:08 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: How Would You Handle It? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231220808.006b2e98@mail.eden.com> At 03:50 PM 12/31/96 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: M K Ramadoss >> >> Glad you posted the msg. I am *not* saying it is happening now. >> It can happen at a future date. >> I should have been more clear on this. >> >> As for spouses traveling with lecturers, we have had lecturers >> whose spouses accompanied them. >> >Yes, abuses are possible in any organization. I'd just thought I'd add my >eyewitness account of the frugality regarding one particular guest >speaker at Olcott. > >A very Happy New Year to all, > >-AEB In the past, there have been occasions that I had visiting lecturers stay with me and I did provide them with transport as well. One time, I was offered reimbursement of the expenses by the then National Board Director representing our District and I *declined* it saying I considered it a honor to have the lecturers as my guest. What is beyond me is the spouses travelling with lecturers, which appears to be happening more frequently now. MKR