From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 16:08:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: "New" Mahatma Letter Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961231220805.006ac510@mail.eden.com> Thanks Nicholas Weeks for posting the letter. Even if one or two things in the letter appeals to us and is/are put in action, it is priceless. >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: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 07:26:32 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <32d604a0.44541978@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 31 Dec 96, Michael wrote: >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. Somewhere in between ignoring the ideas of others, in effect reinventing the wheel, and treating them as unquestioned truth, is the ideal. It is not wrong to have pre-conceived opinions, but it is wrong not to question them. It is impossible not to be dogmatic. >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 ? There is no injustice in chance. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 07:26:38 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <32d50487.44516328@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 31 Dec 96, Murray Stentiford wrote: >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. As far as I know, the latest in scientific knowledge is that there is inherent randomness, which, if true, makes a deterministic "cause-and-effect" view of karma not the whole story. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 00:15:29 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: In message <199612300150.UAA19726@cliff.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >DR. ALAN BAIN IS BACK!!! > >WHOOPEE! > >-Ann E. Bermingham er ... yes ... er, like hooray ... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 00:24:37 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Happy New Year and all that Message-ID: In message <961230022051_943626093@emout15.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >glad to see you back. Give our love to King Arthur. > >Chuck the Heretic Haven't come across him this far down south. There is a stone circle about 2 or 3 miles down the road (nine stones I think) called "The Merry Maidens" - should please some on the list :-) Alam From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 00:19:23 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Adam and Lilith and Eve Message-ID: In message <199612300225.TAA27940@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >Try as "they" might, among those with a feminist agenda, Lilith is still >considered really cool. > Fascinating version of this story! God didn't come out too well though. Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 17:34:47 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970101163447.006c5834@xs4all.nl> I appreciate the responses, especially from Murray and Titus. All gave facets of the multiple enigma of Karma. Titus wrote: >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. > Taking upon oneself the burden of another might be seen as immersing/aligning oneself in the state of mind of someone else and taking over/dissipating all heaviness, so that the other feels relieved. Indeed overstepping one's boundaries, caring for another recognizing part of oneself in him/her, is part of the hallmark of a state of being, which brings one to another quality of life, including taking upon oneself the burden of a generation of families like Prof. Jung felt he did. A state of being that is constantly being besieged and therefore compared to walking on a razor's edge. Another aspect which may be confused with or considered "Karma" is that people seem to receive power when being called upon by circumstances or their fellow-(wo)men. They rise above their normal personality - something else takes over. In the case of HPB, being placed in a unique position, or called upon, to enlighten others with an inspiring outlook on life, gave her the inspiration of a genius. The entrusted spiritual power may come as a blessing, a flow of energy to others. Yet, there is the danger that it can be taken away, leaving the one who passed it on, thrown back and empty like the dark night of the soul. On an ordinary level coincidences may change one to quite another person, like in the case of an extra who is at the right place at the right moment so being pushed up to stardom (another instance is Napoleon). All ingredients for food for thought. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 00:22:03 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: In message <961230022439_1821982962@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >ALLAH BE PRAISED! > >Chuck the Heretic Actually it's one 'L' and a final 'N' 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, 01 Jan 1997 15:05:53 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: how would you handle it Message-ID: <199701012019.PAA12321@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Add my experience to what Ann depicts. Whoever came to talk to us at Paterson Lodge paid their own way. I sometimes furnished a meal, and transportation to & from the railroad. If they stayed overnight, one of the other members usually put them up, because I had an apartment and no guest room. I know that the lecturers who went around the country, like Bing, lived & ate in whatever mode the members of the Study Center would & could provide. No fancy hotels. Sometimes it was good and sometimes it was lousy. I remember one meal I cooked for Roger, and, I think, Marcia. It was my first adventure at making quiche, and the darn thing wouldn't solidify, until we'd pretty near starved to death. I also remember a ride to the railroad station in the fog which was hair raising. Bing just sat there quietly in his seat with his arms folded. Maybe he was praying. And Anna Lemkow had to take the NY subway first to get the bus for New Jersey. The trip took her 2 hours, one way. I wouldn't call any of that the lap of luxury. They are dedicated people. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 15:51:40 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: law of karma Message-ID: <199701012104.QAA16305@ultra1.dreamscape.com> I haven't been following the discussion about Karma too closely, because we had a very good & lengthy discussion about it, perhaps a year ago. It must be in the archives. I'd like to protest a bit here. Titus you make 2 statements I don't agree with & I hope you don't mind, if I tell you what I believe. You talk about taking on another person's Karma. That's hardly ever done. You can show someone else the way, and try to get them to see what to you is the right way, but if they don't want to accept what you think they should, there's no way you're going to get them to do it. True, parents sacrifice for their kids, to smoothen the way for them, but like you can skimp & save to be able to send your kid to college, but if (s)he doesns't want to go, or if (s)he goes, and decides to waste a lot of time going to parties, there's nothing you can do about it. That is you can't make them study. You can only take them out of school. Even a healer can only apply whatever knowledge (s)he has to the healee. The healee has to do the healing. That often works, but sometimes it doesn't. I also don't agree that there's a certain amount of pain built into this world. That's a theoretical belief, which stems from the Buddhist belief that there is no such thing as sin, only human beings who err, & don't as yet know how to do it any better. That's what causes the detrimental kind of Karma, and pain. I think pain comes when we don't know how to do something, and I think that eventually we'll be so familiar with the way the universe works that we won't call forth any pain from it. I'm not sure that the Masters experienced pain anymore, or if they did, they knew how to deflect it so it didn't matter. I think very advanced human beings don't hurt. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 09:02:14 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970102151430.1ce7b7dc@iprolink.co.nz> Ann, [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. [Murray] > 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 .... [Ann] 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. [Murray's response] Yes, indeed. The journey of a thousand miles begins not only with a step, but also from where you are right now. Very original, I know .... :-) Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 09:02:17 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Adam and Lilith and Eve Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970102151433.1c37390a@iprolink.co.nz> Kym, Reading some of the highly intriguing stuff about Lilith set my mind to wondering if it might contain a buried psychological interpretation or "truth". But I'll recap a bit of the discussion first: [Kym] 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. ... 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). ... 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. [Tom] >Lilith _does_ sound like the typical woman! [Kym] Does she now! Well, on behalf of typical women everywhere - thank you! Tom in guise of troublemaker supremo! :-) As a representation of a lot of male thinking, it is, of course, too true to be good! In fact, that line set me thinking about how we are said to create and project the reality we perceive around us, from out of the preconceptions and other stuff we keep in our personal subconscious collection. This happens whenever a man looks at or otherwise interacts with a woman. What he perceives (thought & feeling levels as well as physical) is strongly conditioned by his anima-like store within, I believe. A man who rapes or carries out other violence upon a woman, IMO projects from his negative internal store of shit about women and the world in general, and sees an image that "justifies" his striking and destroying etc etc. An image that includes his being "powerful" in these pathological ways. And even in much less pathological and destructive behaviours, is not this kind of projection the cause of so many problems, so much pain and disillusionment? Verily a pack of demons. Lilith - the evil seen without when it really lies within. I suspect the hunger of attraction in the male for the female arises, too, from a deep sense of separation from that opposite, which occurs sometime in the growth from child to adult. It comes to be seen as *other*, outside oneself; the missing element that is needed for completion. Ironic and deeply mysterious, then, that it is in some way right within him all the time. And again, a fruiful source of trouble. (But not *just* trouble!) And perhaps, one of the major themes in the drama of the liberation of woman will be the transformation and lightening of this part of the anima within man. In turn, man may find release from the pangs of the endless search for the magnetic "other" when he realises it exists so much within himself. And perhaps man's role in this context is to perfect his ability to *see* the feminine in all its beauty and power when he encounters one of its embodiments, and act accordingly. To see it *accurately* in its potential, as well as the degree of its realisation in the individual human being. I've been talking about man sofar, but we can transpose these ideas, male-for-female, to a considerable extent. As appropriate, because there are some things that are specific to each side. The sense of hunger for completion has a wider manifestation, too - in the search for the divine. Again, something buried deep within and initially sought without, then finally realised to be everywhere, as self and Self are seen to merge. But that's another theos-l discussion. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 16:19:36 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: how would you handle it Message-ID: <199701012132.QAA18537@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > 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.> I agree with Doss. Case in point. The proceeds from the sale of the Boston Lodge, after the lawyers got the lion's share, went partly to the Lodge and partly to who knows whom, someone representing Wheaton or the North East Federation, or some such thing. (I've forgotten the exact amounts but it was quite a considerable sum). The Lodge took their money, and bought another building which they are now using. I heard that the Wheaton money, had been put into a savings account. It sounded like the height of foolishness to me for that much money to be in a comparatively low yield savings account, so about a year ago, I asked Fernando De Torjillos, who was & is the NE Director, what was happening to that other money. He answered back, on the defensive, that it was in the hands of a Trust. So I asked back "what Trust", because I really wanted to know what was happening with that money. I have yet to get an answer. The subject happened to have come up by accident recently in my correspondence with Elisabeth Trumpler. So I asked again "what's happening with the Boston money". The question wasn't even acknowledged. I don't think anybody in the TS is really crooked. But Es members hang together by hook or by crook. If they cheat to win elections, which I think they did, several times, who knows what's happening to that money. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 00:20:58 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Adam and Lilith and Eve Message-ID: <32e0f8f5.7301454@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 1 Jan 97, Murray Stentiford wrote: >man may find release from the pangs of the endless search for >the magnetic "other" when he realises it exists so much within himself. Just as wisdom may be said to exist within oneself, but its discovery is aided by contact with others, so might masculinity and femininity be said to exist within each individual, but their balanced development is aided by relationships. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:27:31 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: The Path to Theosophy Message-ID: <199701020127.AA28596@lafn.org> Although this extract by HPB was a response to those who found THE SECRET DOCTRINE to difficult, chaotic etc. to study with ease; her advice also applies not just to book study, but our whole approach to Theosophy. ##################### There are several ways of acquiring knowledge: (a) by accepting blindly the dicta of the church or modern science; (b) by rejecting both and starting to find the truth for oneself. The first method is easy and leads to social respectability and the praise of men; the other is difficult and requires more than ordinary devotion to truth, a disregard for direct personal benefits and an unwavering perseverance. Thus it was in the days of old and so it is now, except perhaps, that such devotion to truth has been more rare in our own day than it was of yore. Indeed, the modern Eastern student's unwillingness to think for himself is now as great as Western exactions and criticism of other people's thoughts. He demands and expects that his "Path" shall be engineered with all the selfish craft of modern comfort, macadamized, laid out with swift railways and telegraphs, and even telescopes, through which he may, while sitting at his ease, survey the works of other people; and while criticizing them, look out for the easiest, in order to play at the Occultist and Amateur Student of Theosophy. The real "Path" to esoteric knowledge is very different. Its entrance is overgrown with the brambles of neglect, the travesties of truth during long ages block the way, and it is obscured by the proud contempt of self-sufficiency and with every verity distorted out of all focus. To push over the threshold alone, demands an incessant, often unrequited labor of years, and once on the other side of the entrance, the weary pilgrim has to toil up on foot, for the narrow way leads to forbidding mountain heights, unmeasured and unknown, save to those who have reached the cloud-capped summit before. Thus must he mount, step by step, having to conquer every inch of ground before him by his own exertions; moving onward, guided by strange landmarks the nature of which he can ascertain only by deciphering the weather-beaten, half-defaced inscriptions as he treads along, for woe to him, if, instead of studying them, he sits by coolly pronouncing them "indecipherable." The "Doctrine of the Eye" is *maya*; that of the "Heart" alone, can make of him an elect. Is it to be wondered that so few reach the goal, that so many are called, but so few are chosen? Is not the reason for this explained in three lines on page 27 of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE? These say that while "The first repeat in pride: `Behold, I *know,*' the last, they who in humbleness have garnered, low confess, `thus have I heard'"; and hence, become the only "chosen." [From BCW 12, 236-37; part of HPB's article "Mistaken Notions on THE SECRET DOCTRINE." -- 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: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 20:24:15 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: how would you handle it Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970102022415.006b1d30@mail.eden.com> At 03:19 PM 1/1/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >I wouldn't call any of that the lap of luxury. They are dedicated people. > >Liesel I agree with Liesel. Theosophy and TS is where it is today because the sacrifices of a lot of dedicated people. There are still a lot of people who are sacrificing and dedicated. When administrative secrecy and lack of openness with money and property gets into the picture, that is the begginning of the problem. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 20:37:15 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: how would you handle it Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970102023715.006aad44@mail.eden.com> At 04:40 PM 1/1/97 -0500, you wrote: >> 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.> > >I agree with Doss. Case in point. The proceeds from the sale of the Boston >Lodge, after the lawyers got the lion's share, went partly to the Lodge and >partly to who knows whom, someone representing Wheaton or the North East >Federation, or some such thing. (I've forgotten the exact amounts but it was >quite a considerable sum). The Lodge took their money, and bought another >building which they are now using. I heard that the Wheaton money, had been >put into a savings account. It sounded like the height of foolishness to me >for that much money to be in a comparatively low yield savings account, so >about a year ago, I asked Fernando De Torjillos, who was & is the NE >Director, what was happening to that other money. He answered back, on the >defensive, that it was in the hands of a Trust. So I asked back "what >Trust", because I really wanted to know what was happening with that money. >I have yet to get an answer. The subject happened to have come up by >accident recently in my correspondence with Elisabeth Trumpler. So I asked >again "what's happening with the Boston money". The question wasn't even >acknowledged. I don't think anybody in the TS is really crooked. But Es >members hang together by hook or by crook. If they cheat to win elections, >which I think they did, several times, who knows what's happening to that money. > >Liesel Some of those who are newbees to theos-l may want to go back and see the mass of messages that discussed the bylaws change that was made at TSA. The changes were (mis) presented as routine house keeping, when those who drafted the presentation knew fully well that the real changes were *not* house keeping. It was a tragedy that a society whose motto is There is No Religion Higher Than Truth should see such a thing happen. It is indeed Kali Yuga and I suppose anything is possible. We may also recall how when the question of withdrawal of charter of various national sections in Denmark, Yugoslavia, Canada etc were brought out, it was very simplistically explained away saying that the situation in those countries were not that simple implying I suppose that none of us are competent enough to understand complex matters, thus belittling the intelligence of average member of TS. I am posting this message so that newbees should get to know the details and understand what has gone on and who the players are. Then they can come to their own conclusions. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 04:49:46 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970102034946.006984a8@xs4all.nl> >On Tue, 31 Dec 96, Michael wrote: > >>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. Tom answered: >Somewhere in between ignoring the ideas of others, in effect reinventing >the wheel, and treating them as unquestioned truth, is the ideal. It is >not wrong to have pre-conceived opinions, but it is wrong not to question >them. It is impossible not to be dogmatic. Michael responds: A typical example of speculation is that on Adam and Eve. There is not any shread of evidence in this story. Yet, it had its function thousands of years ago to put people into the picture religio-historically. Practically everything in tradition is not based on facts at all. It is our duty to make sense out of the present state of knowledge. Tradition has validity in observations about nature, or the human mind, based on observations and experiences which are timeless. > Liesel wrote: >I also don't agree that there's a certain amount of pain built into this >world. Well, look at the suffering in the animal kingdom and its struggle for survival of the fittest! Don't tell me an animal does not have pain. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 21:10:17 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Law of Karma Message-ID: <199701020510.VAA21707@palrel1.hp.com> liesel@dreamscape.com wrote: > Titus you make 2 statements I don't agree with & I hope you don't mind, if I > tell you what I believe. With such a friendly tone for your disagreement, I don't mind at all. It's a pleasure to hear your views. I hope my following disagreements with your disagreement is taken in the same spirit! > You talk about taking on another person's Karma. That's hardly ever done. It's hardly ever done with full consciousness. But it's hardly ever *not* done in some form where there is sharing, concern or intimacy. > You can show someone else the way, and try to get them to see what to you is > the right way, but if they don't want to accept what you think they should, > there's no way you're going to get them to do it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling your definition of taking on karma seems to mean ensuring that a person makes right choice and "sees the light." What I mean is lightening a person's penalty for wrong choice. What he does with that lightened load is still entirely up to him - regardless of how high an initiate has assumed the load. How can it be otherwise when we have free will? Hopefully, of course, the person will use the moment of having his head above his suffering waters to think straight and get back on his feet. > I also don't agree that there's a certain amount of pain built into this > world. That's a theoretical belief, which stems from the Buddhist belief > that there is no such thing as sin, only human beings who err, & don't as > yet know how to do it any better. I would hardly call it a theoretical belief. It may be that the Masters had the ability to "deflect" pain, but I wonder if their state of evolvement was reached without pain in past lives. And I wonder if their further evolvement might not require voluntarily experiencing pain again. BTW, how does your definition of sin differ from "erring"? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 01 Jan 1997 21:12:52 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Oops! Message-ID: <199701020512.VAA16212@palrel3.hp.com> Lost my mail editor definitions. Sorry for my retransmissions. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 05:28:44 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Law of Karma Message-ID: <32e1470f.26732766@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 2 Jan 97, Titus Roth wrote: >What I mean is lightening a person's penalty for wrong choice. I can believe that higher beings can regulate the karma of lower beings, but I do not believe that long-run karma can be changed by anyone. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:29:39 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The Path to Theosophy Message-ID: <199701021652.LAA06394@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Nicholas Weeks > Although this extract by HPB was a response to those who found THE > SECRET DOCTRINE to difficult, chaotic etc. to study with ease; her > advice also applies not just to book study, but our whole approach > to Theosophy. > > He demands and expects that his "Path" shall be engineered > with all the selfish craft of modern comfort, macadamized, laid out > with swift railways and telegraphs, and even telescopes, through > which he may, while sitting at his ease, survey the works of other > people; and while criticizing them, look out for the easiest, in > order to play at the Occultist and Amateur Student of Theosophy. > > Is it to be wondered that so few reach the goal, that so many > are called, but so few are chosen? Is not the reason for this > explained in three lines on page 27 of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE? > These say that while "The first repeat in pride: `Behold, I > *know,*' the last, they who in humbleness have garnered, low > confess, `thus have I heard'"; and hence, become the only "chosen." > > [From BCW 12, 236-37; part of HPB's article "Mistaken Notions on > THE SECRET DOCTRINE." > I could not help but read the paragraph above and replace railways with cars, telegraphs with cell phones and telescopes with satellites, not to mention the medium that we are using - the Internet and computers. It jolted me back to the time HPB was writing this and made me wonder what her commentary would be today, more than 100 years ago. Many people's lives have speeded up since her day, with an increase in population. It is harder to travel, even though we have fast cars and airplanes. There's so many more people going our way, even on the bus and highway. At least in this country, there's two-income families with even children working at the fast food eatery to make ends meet. In the rush of busy life today, who will fit in the time to study the Secret Doctrine? Who will be available to do the indepth work that she is talking about? These are my questions, even though I feel that every individual has an individual answer to them. -AEB NOTE: mac·ad·am·ize (me-kąd¹e-mģz“) verb, transitive mac·ad·am·ized, mac·ad·am·iz·ing, mac·ad·am·iz·es To construct or pave (a road) with macadam. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 12:31:22 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Adam & Eve Revisited Message-ID: <32CC1B16.66EE@withoutwalls.com> Bart wrote: >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). Agreed. I should have specified the Christian viewpoint when prefacing my comments. >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). >From S.D. Vol 2, pg.410 - "The Curse" from a Philosophical point of view: "When understood, the third chapter of Genesis will be found to refer to the Adam and Eve of the closing third (Lemurian) and the commencing Fourth (Atlantean) Races." (my parenthesis) --- I'll cite also "The Solar System" by A.E. Powell as a good synopsis of Fourth Round/Early Root Race events, largely drawn from Besant/Leadbeater sources (whatever that might be worth). A good combing of the Secret Doctrine and other TS authors (like Scott-Elliot) can support much of the timetable. The diagram on page 201 of "The Solar System" is particularly thought provoking in regards to the sequence of supposed Lemurian events. These happenings, said by Theosophy to occur prior to or over the course of Lemurian times shed light on the early Genesis chapters and open ripe discussions on topics like: the creation and fall of man, the wars and rebellions in heaven, the fall of angels, the separation of the sexes, (and drifting into Atlantean epochs) the presence of giants, nefilim and gibborim, the stories in the book of Enoch, the wars of the sons of light and darkness, the esoteric histories of the children of Cain, Abel and Seth, etc. (The whole Judeo-Christian mythos). _______________ A Theosophical tidbit concerning the topic of "Lilith": >From S.D. Vol 2 pgs 282-285: "The early Atlanto-Lemurians are charged with taking unto themselves (divine incarnations) wives of a lower race, namely, the race of hitherto mindless men ..." "But with the Fourth Race (atlantean) we reach the purely human period. Those who were human only in appearance, became physiologically changed and took unto themselves wives who were entirely human and fair to look at, but in whom lower, more material, though sidereal, beings had incarnated. These being in female forms (Lilith is the prototype of these in the Jewish traditions) are called in the esoteric accounts "Khado" (Dakini, in Sanskrit). Allegorical legends call the chief of these Liliths, Sangye Khado (Buddha Dakini, in Sanskrit); all are credited with the art of "walking in the air" and the greatest kindness to mortals; but no mind - only animal instinct" (i.e. there were "mindless" human beings around during early Atlanto-Lemurian times)-MK S.D. Footnote: These are the beings whose legendary existance has served as a ground-work upon which to build the rabbinical Lilith, and what the believers in the Bible would term the antediluvian woman, and the Kabalists the pre-Adamite races. They are no fiction - this is certain, however fantastic the exhuberance of later growth. ____ Question: Might this Lilith story have different aspects that relate it to: 1) the creation of Elohim (The Kabalistic Adam Kadmon, created in the image of God, male and female), or the true androgyne nature of our higher principles? (This aspect can also take on the psychological/Jungian Anima-Animus twist so aptly put recently by Murray.) 2) obscure events that are said to have occured in the fourth sub-race of the Lemurian root race (the supposed theosophical history angle) as different classes of reawakening egos, among them those from Globes A, B and C of the Moon chain incarnated into the earth. In particular those egos of the orange type from Globe A that "refused the (androgynous or hermaphroditic) bodies offered to them" out of sheer pride and in conseqence gave them up (see The Solar System pg 207-211). (re: Lilith saying "no way" and then flying off for a while)-MK These bodies were soon seized by other entities just emerging from the animal kingdom. These primitive emergent humans mated with "huge she-animals" (I guess a hermaphrodite can do that?) and begat dumb races of "crooked red-haired monsters". They have been known in theosophy as those who committed the "sin of the mindless", although they are not held guilty for it. (Note: this is mid-Lemurian, pre-separation of the sexes and before the coming of the Manasaputtras or the impartation of the spark of mind - which I equate with the temptation story, Eve's apple and the expulsion). (The angels sent by God to talk to Lilith found "her" by the sea having lots of sex with bottom-loving demons. In some traditions Lilith even takes a break from all the fun to show up as the tempting Serpent in the Garden. Michelangelo's depiction comes to mind)-MK Question: Were the angels trying to get Lilith to go back by force and just submit or was there an equitable solution offered? In other words was the Father/Mother God going to be hip and fair minded about the misunderstanding (after all, they were both "mindless" at the time, according to TS history) or was patriarchal Jehovah just going to have "her" dragged back, shut up and take it? It seems to me that the whole thing could have been sorted out pretty easily, no? 3) the renewal of the "sin of the mindless" (particularly it's emphasis on sex with extant "demons" and the further procreation of "demon-monsters") that theosophy says was to have occured in the much later post-expulsion/pre-deluge fourth or atlantean root race time. (This could account for the period in the Lilith story where she's off partying with those sexy demons again, and then later even doing it with the expelled Adam and most all of his sons. Don't forget, these are Enochian/Atlantean times, when all sorts of sexual debauchery and black-magicky things were supposed to be going on) I'm just speculating, but it sorta makes theosophical-type sense - What do you folks think? Xena, we need Xena! ______ P.S. There are several "Lilith" sites on the net worth a look. Here are two of my favorites: Lilith http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/ The Lilith Shrine http://www.cjnetworks.com/~lilitu/lilith/ It's interesting to note that the chief source text for the "popular" (if you can call it that) story of Lilith is a later medieval work called "The Alphabet of Ben Sira". A citique of this source text is available at: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/950206_Lilith.html Best wishes for the New Year, From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 15:29:12 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Path to Theosophy Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970102212912.006ae88c@mail.eden.com> Here are my few thoughts, however outrageous they may be: > Although this extract by HPB was a response to those who found THE > SECRET DOCTRINE to difficult, chaotic etc. to study with ease; her > advice also applies not just to book study, but our whole approach > to Theosophy. > ##################### > > There are several ways of acquiring knowledge: (a) by > accepting blindly the dicta of the church or modern science; (b) by > rejecting both and starting to find the truth for oneself. The > first method is easy and leads to social respectability and the > praise of men; What a wise statement. If this was just written yesterday, it is a good summary of the current situation. Don't we all to one degree or another seek/crave social respectability and praise of others so that we feel good and makes life easy. I think we can today replace "church" by any organized form of creed or dogma or a set of ideas (and beliefs) -- no matter how cleverly couched in highly deceptive diplomatic language or based on claim of authority or inspiration. One we accept them, there is no further arguments you are considered a nice guy or gal who does not rock the boat. Once you start questioning them, you have a hard time ahead of you. Also when you deal with the creed/dogma based setup, it is very easy to relate them to dollars and cents by whatever name it is called - tithe, admission fee, so called suggested donation and the trick of passing a basket to make *a* *subtle* *pressured* collection. One who has more money to spare will get special attention and treatment and with the hope of sitting at the right hand of god when you get to meet him/her/it. Don't we all see this in all organizations? > the other is difficult and requires more than > ordinary devotion to truth, a disregard for direct personal > benefits and an unwavering perseverance. Thus it was in the days > of old and so it is now, except perhaps, that such devotion to > truth has been more rare in our own day than it was of yore. Disregard for direct personal benefits -- either now (monetary or non monetary) or hereafter, is a very tough sell in today's world when all talk is about cost benefit analysis and payback time. In the day's of yore all things spiritual were considered to be given > Indeed, the modern Eastern student's unwillingness to think for > himself is now as great as Western exactions and criticism of other > people's thoughts. > How true it appears to be today even after 100 years. The moment you start thinking for yourself, you will be seen a threat by every system/dogma/creed and sure enough you will be an outcast. In these days of modern media and its constant bombardment trying to influence the thinking of everyone, it is more difficult and challenging today than 100 years ago. Criticism of others people's thoughts is easy. But one has to be omniscient to truly criticize other's thoughts. He demands and expects that his "Path" shall be engineered > with all the selfish craft of modern comfort, macadamized, laid out > with swift railways and telegraphs, and even telescopes, through > which he may, while sitting at his ease, survey the works of other > people; and while criticizing them, look out for the easiest, in > order to play at the Occultist and Amateur Student of Theosophy. If you look around, today more than ever, an easy engineered *bogus* path is more easily saleable for a lot of dollars especially if you guarantee instantaneous results. More mysterious the *path* is made to appear, more price it can fetch. How radically different are what most men/women want and what the "Real Path", about which HPB should know is. > The real "Path" to esoteric knowledge is very different. Its > entrance is overgrown with the brambles of neglect, the travesties > of truth during long ages block the way, and it is obscured by the > proud contempt of self-sufficiency and with every verity distorted > out of all focus. To push over the threshold alone, demands an > incessant, often unrequited labor of years, and once on the other > side of the entrance, the weary pilgrim has to toil up on foot, for > the narrow way leads to forbidding mountain heights, unmeasured and > unknown, save to those who have reached the cloud-capped summit > before. Thus must he mount, step by step, having to conquer every > inch of ground before him by his own exertions; moving onward, > guided by strange landmarks the nature of which he can ascertain > only by deciphering the weather-beaten, half-defaced inscriptions > as he treads along, for woe to him, if, instead of studying them, > he sits by coolly pronouncing them "indecipherable." The "Doctrine > of the Eye" is *maya*; that of the "Heart" alone, can make of him > an elect. > Is it to be wondered that so few reach the goal, that so many > are called, but so few are chosen? Is not the reason for this > explained in three lines on page 27 of THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE? > These say that while "The first repeat in pride: `Behold, I > *know,*' the last, they who in humbleness have garnered, low > confess, `thus have I heard'"; and hence, become the only "chosen." > It may be difficult to really understand Secret Doctrine. Theoretical understanding may be no that difficult if one has normal mental capacity and perseverance to study. Is it possible that the difficulty in having a real understanding lies in the fact that the higher faculties and sensitiveness have not been activated enough to see the underlying meanings and the connected scenario ? Is it possible that by active persevered practical application of the simplest principle of Universal Brotherhood/Sisterhood/Sibling hood, one may hope a day would come when the higher faculties are awakened and sensitiveness increased so that the real Secret Doctrine become very easy to comprehend? I am trying to make the connection because of the constant reference by HPB to AP Sinnett that "the Chiefs want a Universal Brotherhood". They did not definitely talk about turning out Secret Doctrine Scholars with impressive certificates issued by PhDs. I have to admit that considering my level of knowledge and understanding and ignorance, "the Chiefs" definitely knew 100 years ago what was in store for the masses of humanity -- inhumanity of man/woman to man/woman. May be it is time for all of us to ponder and exchange our ideas and thoughts on these fundamental issues which go a long way to affect a lot people. So much for now. MK Ramadoss > [From BCW 12, 236-37; part of HPB's article "Mistaken Notions on > THE SECRET DOCTRINE." > >-- >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: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:18:00 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: TSA Board of Directors Meetings (fwd) Message-ID: Hi Some of you may be interested in the following msg. May be some of us can attend the meetings and see our representatives in action. Will let you know when I hear from John Algeo. MK Ramadoss > Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 17:11:18 -0600 > From: M K Ramadoss > To: theos@netcom.com > Cc: ramadoss@eden.com > Subject: TSA Board of Directors Meetings BY E-MAIL TO THEOS@NETCOM.COM January 2, 1996 John Algeo National President Theosophical Society of America Wheaton IL Dear Bro. Algeo: I would like to know if the meetings of the Board of Directors of TSA are open to TSA members to attend as interested members. Of course, I do expect some of the sessions dealing with agenda items such as legal advise on current litigation or potential litigation, to be and should be in executive session and not open to anyone other than BOD. I am not asking you to respond based on what is required of TSA under Illinois Non Profit Corporation Act. What I am looking forward is the current practice of TSA. In the eventuality, it is not currently open to interested members, I would like TSA BOD to consider, at the upcoming BOD meeting, opening up the BOD meetings to the membership. TSA will have nothing to lose with such an open policy since the membership can see their elected representatives in real action. Those who are likely to take the time and trouble to attend the meetings are those members serious and interested enough in the best interests of Theosophy and TS. Your early response will be highly appreciated. Fraternally yours, M K Ramadoss Member, San Antonio Lodge, TSA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 19:32:24 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: TSA Board of Directors Meetings (fwd) Message-ID: <970102193223_745100957@emout13.mail.aol.com> Doss, I think I already know what the answer will be. It will be cold day in the south of hell when they open those meetings to the members. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 18:48:54 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TSA Board of Directors Meetings (fwd) Message-ID: <32CC5776.417D@eden.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > Doss, > > I think I already know what the answer will be. It will be cold day in the > south of hell when they open those meetings to the members. > > Chuck the Heretic Chuck: I am a very open minded and optimistic person - as are most T/theosophists. I have known some local organizations whose meetings are always open to members and even to public -- these are 501(c)(3) even though Texas Laws do not require them. In addition, I see a general trend in open meetings and I think nothing but good can come out of openness. So let me wait with optimism. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 17:02:59 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Relationships Message-ID: <32CC5ABC.7239@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >Just as wisdom may be said to exist within oneself, but its discovery is >aided by contact with others, so might masculinity and femininity be said >to exist within each individual, but their balanced development is aided by >relationships. Profound agreement. Tom, that's a wonderful and very poignant observation. At least in this life, it sure seems to me that it's all about relationships. They are all just forms of love. We serve best when we serve one another. This pertains to everyone not just spiritual seekers. I can't tell you how many times I've met someone who was on the "spiritual path" and after getting to know them a while and hearing them spout all this great book philosophy find myself wanting to say "yeah, that's really great, but how are your relationships? Everything OK at home? Are you healthy? Are the finances in order? How's the anger management? The desire management?" Many of them have had personal lifes that were just in shambles (myself included). I may not always say it, but it quickly becomes obvious when things aren't so great. It usually boils down to an inability to see or find the heart of love in the relationship, whether it is with another person or within yourself and your own affairs. I keep trying to tell myself, "If this stuff is true for one it's true for all of us" Slowly, little by little, I begin to see my neighbor as myself. 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: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 17:15:27 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Theosophy World Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970102054507.0068f2ec@mail.deltanet.com> The January issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD has come out. Its table of contents is: > "Root-Races and Geologic Periods" by William A. Savage > "The Neoplatonic Revival" by A Student > "Language for Theosophy" by Murray Stentiford > "Bliss and Evil" by Eldon Tucker > "New Site from the Theosophical Society (Pasadena)" > by Sarah Belle Dougherty > "Senzar: The Mystery of the Mystery Language", Part I > by John Algeo > "Towards a Theosophy of Art" by Keith Price > "One Can Only Smile" by Eldon Tucker > "HPB: A Woman Generations Ahead of Her Time" > by Judy D. Saltzman, Ph.D. > "Theosophy Northwest" by Sarah Belle Dougherty 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: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 22:00:59 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: karma Message-ID: <199701030314.WAA11457@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >ell, look at the suffering in the animal kingdom and its struggle for >survival of the fittest! Don't tell me an animal does not have pain. >Michael Animals have pain, agreed. I think my point should have been rather that very adept human beings can deal with pain so that it doesn't affect them. Since I read a book on chaos theory, I don't believe anymore that survival of the fittest is the only valid mode by means of which organisms survive. Sometimes rivals adapt to each other, sometimes they learn to live in different spheres, like one in air and one underground, sometimes they learn to cooperate with each other to reach a common goal. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 22:20:56 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: karma Message-ID: <199701030334.WAA13608@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Hi, Titus, I think our disagreement re taking on another person's karma is in the nomenclature we use, because I really agree with what you now say "what he does with that lightened load is entirely up to him ..... we have free will." That's what I was talking about. I'm sure, in my own mind, that the Masters had pain in past lives. They are said to be human beings, only more perfected than most others. As for voluntarily taking it on in future lives, I believe that they don't have to, because I think they've learned how to deal with pain so it doesn't hurt them. An adept knows how to deal with the forces of nature. You'd like to know my definition of sin as opposed to erring. Sin, to me is unforgiveable. The sinner lands in hell. A person who errs can sooner or later learn to do it better, and so become redeemed. To me one of the beauties of karma is that as you learn you can change it. People who don't learn anything keep on making the same mistake over & over again. A striking example which comes to mind is a divorced person, who remarries someone very much like their first spouse, and is just as miserable for the same reasons the second time round. That's Karma presenting them with the same lesson, until they realize what they need to change. Then the karma will change. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 02:10:19 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: TSA Board of Directors Meetings (fwd) Message-ID: <970103021018_372361497@emout09.mail.aol.com> Doss, Have fun waiting, but in any event, I am told that is possible to get the minutes of the board meeting from the National Secretary once they've been transcribed. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 23:03:58 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970104051614.1df76d98@iprolink.co.nz> Chuck, Thanks for your descriptions of Gerda and yourself. They made an impact more than I would have thought possible from a simple personal description, but I still can't say I've made a positive recollection. Oh well, nice try. I wonder what would happen if everybody volunteered a personal description of themselves .... It might add another dimension to our communication with each other. Whenever I've given a talk to a very small audience, the greater scope for interaction has been very worthwhile, everybody getting a lot out of it. Not very good for the economies of scale, of course. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 23:04:07 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Law of Karma? (1) Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970104051623.1df75b12@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to Tom [Tom] Somewhere in between ignoring the ideas of others, in effect reinventing the wheel, and treating them as unquestioned truth, is the ideal. It is not wrong to have pre-conceived opinions, but it is wrong not to question them. It is impossible not to be dogmatic. [Murray in reply] I like the balance inherent in this, but I would differ from your use of the word "dogmatic". In my experience, it certainly can have the positive elements you've mentioned recently, but it is most often used for an attitude or way of speaking that 1 is inflexible or rigid, 2 has lost its primary foundation in experience and relies more on tradition and authority, and 3 has an element of power-play in that it is imposed from "above" and you'd better believe or else. A word that avoids these negativities but still carries the better side is "doctrine", IMO. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 23:04:12 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Law of Karma? (2) Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970104051628.1df73754@iprolink.co.nz> Tom, [Murray] >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. [Tom] As far as I know, the latest in scientific knowledge is that there is inherent randomness, which, if true, makes a deterministic "cause-and-effect" view of karma not the whole story. [Murray replying] Yes, there's quite a lot about this around, now, tho' I haven't read much of it personally. It applies in one way at the quantum level, where it is related to the Uncertainty Principle, and in another way in large-scale complex systems where it's tied up with Chaos theory. Certainly, it knocks holes in the idea that karma is rigidly deterministic. Jerry Schueler wrote at length about all this on theos-l a year and more ago. But even just staying with the idea of determinism, when it is opened up to the possibility of multiple levels of reality interacting with each other, there could be a lot more determining factors than we currently imagine, especially in the relatively expansive world view of theosophy. One mystic has said that everything causes everything else, in a continuous matrix of relatedness (not an exact quote). I'm thinking of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, in a book of talks called "I Am That". It wouldn't be too different from what other mystics have said, either, in a view of the whole manifested universe as a sea of shining light/energy that is beheld by the ultimate Witness within as something other than that Witness, yet unified with it. We can certainly say that some things play a bigger part in determining certain outcomes than others, but the participatory universe idea is one that grows in depth, IMO. I feel that there's a cultural underlayer in the idea of determination that is inherently too separative and limited to fit reality very well, and clogs up our ideas on karma. A good antidote might be to bring in some of the imagery of fluid flow. For instance, how much does the flow of one cubic inch of water in a river determine the flow of the next cubic inch just downstream of it? Quite a bit, of course, but the whole river has a say, really, just because all parts of the water are in communication with each other. And then there are the banks.... Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 07:03:07 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TSA Board of Directors Meetings (fwd) Message-ID: <32CD038B.6D9B@eden.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > Doss, > Have fun waiting, but in any event, I am told that is possible to get the > minutes of the board meeting from the National Secretary once they've been > transcribed. > > Chuck the Heretic Chuck: Thanks for the information. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:28:26 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <970103132816_944274783@emout11.mail.aol.com> Murray, Considering the trouble Gerda gets me into around there, I should be thankful you don't remember us, but then there are so many people that come through Olcott, I'm not surprised. But I got this weird idea. I wonder what would happen on the list if people posted their pictures. If a face were associated with a name, would it improve the level of discourse? I agree with you about the smaller groups, though it is nice to have a packed room and wild applause. Now a packed room and flying vegetables, that's another matter but that hasn't happened yet, at least not to me. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 13:30:09 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: TSA Board of Directors Meetings (fwd) Message-ID: <970103133007_1524922919@emout03.mail.aol.com> Doss, You're welcome. And keep trying. Maybe someday something might pry them open. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 07:48:22 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Relationships Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970104140038.1b5f604e@iprolink.co.nz> Mark wrote >I can't tell you how many times I've met someone who was on the >"spiritual path" and after getting to know them a while and hearing them >spout all this great book philosophy find myself wanting to say "yeah, >that's really great, but how are your relationships? Everything OK at >home? Are you healthy? Are the finances in order? >How's the anger management? The desire management?" Ha .... Touche! The touchstone indeed. Well said, throughout that post. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 12:29:53 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Karma Message-ID: <199701032029.MAA13555@palrel1.hp.com> Liesel wrote: > Sin, to me is unforgiveable. The sinner lands in hell. A person who > errs can sooner or later learn to do it better, and so become > redeemed. Wow. You believe there are unforgiveable deeds and people who can't learn to do better? I admit there are people who I wonder about (half serious here), but a little voice inside me whispers the question, "Why would God create someone who is damned?" It really boils down to how God can give us free will, but nevertheless keep us from using that free will to permanently get on the wrong track. Though it looks ridiculously simple, the answer is: karma! If wrong deeds invoke pain, given the gift of reincarnation and eternal time, we must eventually learn to use our will according to His Will. I used the word "simple", but as Jung remarked, "How extraordinarly difficult it is to live simply!" Maya with her ten thousand veils! > To me one of the beauties of karma is that as you learn you can > change it. People who don't learn anything keep on making the same > mistake over & over again. A striking example which comes to mind is > a divorced person, who remarries someone very much like their first > spouse, and is just as miserable for the same reasons the second > time round. That's Karma presenting them with the same lesson, until > they realize what they need to change. Then the karma will change. I could split hairs over the distinction between karma, which is the consequence of deeds (still counting thoughts as deeds), and learning, which drives one's deeds. But I see your point. Like you, I think people tend to argue over things where there is a superficial, but no root disagreement. If only the religions of the world could realize that. Sigh ... Thanks for some thought provoking remarks and questions. Titus From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:21:34 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Relationships Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, Murray Stentiford wrote: > > Mark wrote > >I can't tell you how many times I've met someone who was on the > >"spiritual path" and after getting to know them a while and hearing them > >spout all this great book philosophy find myself wanting to say "yeah, > >that's really great, but how are your relationships? Everything OK at > >home? Are you healthy? Are the finances in order? > >How's the anger management? The desire management?" > > Ha .... Touche! > The touchstone indeed. > Well said, throughout that post. Add another "yeah" vote to that. IMO the most fundamental relationship on earth-plane is the one between partners - the decision of which partner to choose being perhaps the most significant single *spiritual* decision one makes in life ... even more so than what particular brand of religion or philosophy one professes ... and the nature of the relationship is a virtually unerring testimony to what one *really* believes, what stature one's character has *actually* achieved ... the way a person relates to, and expresses love with, one's partner *is* (IMO) the articulation of the person's *actual* philosophy (as opposed to the fine words - so easy to speak ...). The relationship winds up being a screen upon which almost every trait, positive and negative, reflects itself. Every glitch, every density, every blind-spot, every imbalance in one's growth inevitably causes turbulence, and every achievement, every glow, every refinement of character or expansion of awareness also, just as inevitably, enhances the relationship and causes it to sing. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if every religion on earth decided to issue a proclamation - saying that for the course of but one single year, everyone ought to completely forget about loving "God", or "Humanity", and focus instead completely on attempting - for that one single year - to love just *one* other person ... but to love that person as well and completely as was humanly possible. I wonder if perhaps at the end of that year an enormous number of our worst social, political and economic problems would suddenly seem to have easy solutions, whether all sorts of social turmoil would seem to have - almost as though by magic - smoothed itself out - whether most of the virtues religions attempt (mostly unsuccessfully) to inculcate in their followers wouldn't wind up - without even delibrately trying - being developed quite naturally and of their own accord. Ah well, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 18:07:09 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199701040112.UAA09595@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > But I got this weird idea. I wonder what would happen on the list if people > posted their pictures. If a face were associated with a name, would it > improve the level of discourse? > Or destroy the mystery? Perhaps we could attempt a theos-l website, complete with pictures of some of the members, along with brief descriptions of where they live and how they got involved with theosophy/theos-l. Being the free spirits we are, we could forego pics of ourselves standing in front of our vast theosophical libraries and show ourselves in our natural circumstance. I remember quite clearly visiting one woman's website and seeing photos of her husband's bruised naked butt after a tobaganning accident. We wouldn't have to get that natural, but knowing you, babe . . . -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 01:59:03 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <32d8b622.115594001@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 3 Jan 97, Titus Roth wrote: >Liesel wrote: >> Sin, to me is unforgiveable. The sinner lands in hell. A person who >> errs can sooner or later learn to do it better, and so become >> redeemed. >Wow. You believe there are unforgiveable deeds and people who can't >learn to do better? Liesel's statement and yours can be reconciled by realizing that hell is the natural result of evil, but that does not mean either that it is permanent or that the sinner is beyond redemption. Karma basically says that sin is unforgivable, in that its consequences are inevitable. >I admit there are people who I wonder about (half >serious here), but a little voice inside me whispers the question, >"Why would God create someone who is damned?" To draw an analogy from nature, things are created all the time which fail in their purpose. Individual human beings should be no exception to that rule. >It really boils down to how God can give us free will, but >nevertheless keep us from using that free will to permanently get on >the wrong track. Though it looks ridiculously simple, the answer is: >karma! If wrong deeds invoke pain, given the gift of reincarnation and >eternal time, we must eventually learn to use our will according to >His Will. Enough pain will eventually correct mistakes, but I am not so sure that we have unlimited time. The theory that there is a threshold of failure, past which there is annihilation rather than continued attempts at correction, makes more sense to me. Every lesson from nature is consistent with the ideas that only the fittest survive and that success, rather than being guaranteed, has a deadline. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:11:02 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <970104011101_70527697@emout01.mail.aol.com> Ann, Sorry to disappoint all my fans, but all my pictures of me have my clothes on. Chuck the Heretic (who catches cold easily) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Jan 4 02:15:47 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: The New Year Message-ID: <199701040715.CAA17091@envirolink.org> So! Is everyone celebrating the New Year tomorrow(Jan. 4)? Or did you celebrate on the first like everyone else. OH! Ann, I have a queestion for you. I believe I read somewhere that if a month or week starts on a wednesday, that month or week is a Mercury month or week. (I think it pertained to months, ...hehe, please forgive my brain-fart) This year started on a wednesday, (unless you go by the new year starting on Jan. 4) ...so would that make this year a mercury year? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:53:54 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: > > Ann, > Sorry to disappoint all my fans, but all my pictures of me have my clothes > on. > > Chuck the Heretic (who catches cold easily) > Uncle Chuckie...waving negatives... How about the *other* pictures? Scurrying back to mousehole... Gertrude -the poor as a - Churchmouse -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 11:15:01 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Evolution/hell/genes Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970104101501.006c5640@xs4all.nl> Liesel wrote: >Since I read a book on chaos theory, I don't believe anymore that survival >of the fittest is the only valid mode by means of which organisms survive. >Sometimes rivals adapt to each other, sometimes they learn to live in >different spheres, like one in air and one underground, sometimes they learn >to cooperate with each other to reach a common goal. I am also fascinated by the Chaos theory which may give us new clues. Yes, whether survival of the fittest is the real drive behind evolution remains to be seen. It is an upward surge filled with suffering and delight. Liesel: >You'd like to know my definition of sin as opposed to erring. Sin, to me is >unforgiveable. The sinner lands in hell. Here we enter again into pure speculation. A so-called sinner may be the victim of inherited family traits. To conguer them might also be inborn. A sinner might be considered a sick person. Hell may be a cozy place to some minds. Liesel: > A person who errs can sooner or >later learn to do it better, and so become redeemed. To me one of the >beauties of karma is that as you learn you can change it. People who don't >learn anything keep on making the same mistake over & over again. To learn is also inherited. Some will never learn and it remains to be seen whether they are entirely responsible or victims of "fate". It looks like the Christian pre-ordination dogma is to be dusted of. LIesel: > A striking example which comes to mind is a divorced person, who remarries >someone very >much like their first spouse, and is just as miserable for the same reasons >the second time round. That's Karma presenting them with the same lesson, >until they realize what they need to change. Then the karma will change. I have seen this example occur many times with people I know/knew, yet wonder whether it is psychology or karma. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:51:04 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199701041714.MAA06234@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: CDGertrude > > > > Sorry to disappoint all my fans, but all my pictures of me have my clothes > > on. > > > > Chuck the Heretic (who catches cold easily) > > > Uncle Chuckie...waving negatives... > How about the *other* pictures? > Scurrying back to mousehole... > I knew it. The truth is OUT THERE! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 10:53:43 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The New Year Message-ID: <199701041714.MAA06251@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > OH! Ann, I have a queestion for you. I believe I read somewhere that if a > month or week starts on a wednesday, that month or week is a Mercury month or > week. (I think it pertained to months, ...hehe, please forgive my brain-fart) > This year started on a wednesday, (unless you go by the new year starting on > Jan. 4) ...so would that make this year a mercury year? > --- Got me hanging on this one. No, I never heard of this, but there's a great deal of astrological stuff like that out there (not necessarily the truth either). The data is so immense that I limit my study. Can anyone else here address this? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 12:17:41 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <970104121740_1689400657@emout19.mail.aol.com> Gertrude, You mean the ones of us at the party in my helmet and surgical mask? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 97 12:36:28 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Quantum mysticism Message-ID: <199701042037.MAA58180@scv3.apple.com> >Yes, there's quite a lot about this around, now, tho' I haven't read much of >it personally. It applies in one way at the quantum level, where it is >related to the Uncertainty Principle, and in another way in large-scale >complex systems where it's tied up with Chaos theory. Certainly, it knocks >holes in the idea that karma is rigidly deterministic. Why would quantum nondeterminism have anything to do with karma? Under quantum physics, events at the macroscopic scale are almost entirely deterministic. By the time we get to the human scale, all the randomness has become irrelevant, unless we go out of our way to make it relevant through sophisticated measurements. I suppose one could ask how the karmic fate of the cat in Schrodinger's Box could be deterministic, but this is an anomaly. If there's one thing that reading Blavatsky and other nineteenth-century occultists should tech us, it's not to tie our spiritual ideas too closely to modern science. Her attempts to tie electricity to various spiritual phenomena must have seemed exciting and cutting-edge at the time, but they seem quaint and silly now. That is how our quantum mysticism will look in another century. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 14:16:31 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701042216.OAA26497@palrel1.hp.com> I wrote: >> Wow. You believe there are unforgiveable deeds and people who can't learn >> to do better? [snip] >> I admit there are people who I wonder about (half serious here), but a >> little voice inside me whispers the question, "Why would God create someone >> who is damned?" mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) responded: > To draw an analogy from nature, things are created all the time which fail > in their purpose. Individual human beings should be no exception to that > rule. True in a sense. But on grand time scales, I think human beings *are* an exception. Man, having consciousness, has a different destiny than mineral, plant or animal life. Jesus also drew many analogies with human life from nature, nevertheless He put man on a different footing than anything else in creation. For example (Matthew 10:29-31) "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father ... "Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." Your analogy does point to a truth. It is true that much in nature is mirrored in human life. But I would draw a different conclusion than you: *ASPECTS* of our life exist for a season without apparent purpose - and die. One life may appear to be a complete waste - a failed experiment. Nevertheless the germ of a lesson must remain. Concealed in each defeat is a victory and in each death a resurrection. Consciousness, the crown of creation, while it may sleep, will not die. I further wrote: >> It really boils down to how God can give us free will, but nevertheless >> keep us from using that free will to permanently get on the wrong track. >> Though it looks ridiculously simple, the answer is: karma! If wrong deeds >> invoke pain, given the gift of reincarnation and eternal time, we must >> eventually learn to use our will according to His Will. Tom responded: > Enough pain will eventually correct mistakes, but I am not so sure that we > have unlimited time. The theory that there is a threshold of failure, past > which there is annihilation rather than continued attempts at correction, > makes more sense to me. Every lesson from nature is consistent with the > ideas that only the fittest survive and that success, rather than being > guaranteed, has a deadline. Again, I find your comments to contain insight, but I personally would have to tweak them somewhat. I am aware of deadlines in human development. Missing one means missing an opportunity that could cause you tremendous inconvenience and cost enormous amounts of time and pain. One individual incarnation presents a big deadline. But nothing in the recycling universe is completely wasted. Here I would have to put in an analogy that is somewhat lame - as all analogies are - but it illustrates the point: A daily train ride represents a cycle that you can take advantage of. If you make good on your opportunity, you have swift attractive travel. If you miss it, you may have to walk those 200 miles on stony ground or may not get to your destination at all that day. There is the next cycle however ... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 15:16:47 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Relationships Message-ID: <199701042316.PAA28792@palrel1.hp.com> JRC wrote: > The relationship winds up being a screen upon which almost every trait, > positive and negative, reflects itself. Every glitch, every density, every > blind-spot, every imbalance in one's growth inevitably causes turbulence, > and every achievement, every glow, every refinement of character or > expansion of awareness also, just as inevitably, enhances the relationship > and causes it to sing. Quite so. Being with a person 7 days a week is different from loving at a distance. That's where the rubber hits the road. > Sometimes I wonder what would happen if every religion on earth decided to > issue a proclamation - saying that for the course of but one single year, > everyone ought to completely forget about loving "God", or "Humanity", and > focus instead completely on attempting - for that one single year - to > love just *one* other person ... but to love that person as well and > completely as was humanly possible. I wonder if perhaps at the end of that > year an enormous number of our worst social, political and economic > problems would suddenly seem to have easy solutions, whether all sorts of > social turmoil would seem to have - almost as though by magic - smoothed > itself out - whether most of the virtues religions attempt (mostly > unsuccessfully) to inculcate in their followers wouldn't wind up - without > even delibrately trying - being developed quite naturally and of their own > accord. The gist of your statement I agree with. I would have to point out that there is no true love without love of God. Ordinary love of a person has strings attached to it. "I will love you if you stay within this little box of acceptable behavior." "I love you as long as you stroke my ego" ... etc. If you love God in the person, at least as much as a fallable human being can, your love is true love. You have to see God buried behind each temper tantrum, behind each foible. Also, I wouldn't necessarily be harsh on everyone whose marriage is something of a wreck. Karma can be pretty complex. One of those "glitches" you talked about may be just the hole in a person's armor that derails an otherwise loving person. My mother, for example, was a very loving person, but her marriage and a few of her isolated samskaras synergistically combined to often bring out the worst in her. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:50:04 -0500 From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 794 Message-ID: <970104185003_2021148348@emout20.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-03 06:33:47 EST, you write: Re the open BOD proposal, Chuck the Heretic says, "I think I already know what the answer will be. It will be cold day in the south of hell when they open those meetings to the members." I am afraid I have to agree. Look at what happened behind closed doors when they sabatoged Big Escudero's bid for the Presidency of the TSA (not just once but twice). They fixed the elections a la Chicago-style politics and burned the ballots too. You can't do that kind of stuff at open meetings. That's why I don't participate actively anymore. Disillusioned to say the least. So I created my own "home Lodge" with a 3500 volume esoteric library. Enough to keep me busy 'till it's time to go to that Great Lodge beyond the veil, composed hopefully of electic theosophists (with a small "t"). LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:55:18 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Lilith Message-ID: After reading various late mail on theos-l, I did a Bible search (NRSV, Prot version) for Lilith, and found just the one reference: Isa 34:14 Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest. 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, 5 Jan 1997 00:30:21 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: In message <970104011101_70527697@emout01.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Ann, >Sorry to disappoint all my fans, but all my pictures of me have my clothes >on. > >Chuck the Heretic (who catches cold easily) That's a relief, I bet! 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, 04 Jan 1997 20:26:39 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: karma Message-ID: <199701050139.UAA10176@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Murray, What you say about an cubic inch of water flowing down the river, influencing other cubic inches of water flowing down the same river, and also influencing the banks, rings a bell in my memory about how chaos theory works. Some of the phenomena seem random, but they're interrelated and influence each other, and sometimes the randomness seems to follow a fluid pattern. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 20:35:22 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: relationships Message-ID: <199701050148.UAA10964@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > but how are your relationships? Dear Mark and Murray I think we have ideals, and then I think there's the every day where we're at. I was very far from a lot of my ideals when I was younger, but I find that when you try to acquire a certain quality you often do acqquire at least part of it over the years. So I wouldn't just look at each other's feet of clay, nor at your own, but also at what you've achieved in your relationships. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 20:43:13 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: karma Message-ID: <199701050156.UAA11489@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Titus says to me >Wow. You believe there are unforgiveable deeds and people who can't >learn to do better? I admit there are people who I wonder about (half >serious here), but a little voice inside me whispers the question, >"Why would God create someone who is damned ? I didn't say that I believed in this. What I described as "sin" is what I understand certain Christians to believe. I don't believe God would create anyone who is damned. Makes no sense, as you say. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 00:32:25 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Of mice and poverty Message-ID: In message , CDGertrude writes >Gertrude -the poor as a - Churchmouse >-- Poor? POOR? Churchmice hold collections for 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: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 21:00:36 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: karma Message-ID: <199701050213.VAA12933@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Tom, hope you don't mind if I need to disagree with you. My concept of Karma isn't that sin is unforgiveable because its consequences are inevitable. If I believed that, what would be the use of trying to do anything right, or better than last time? Why not just give up? t th4 contrary, I believe that if you don't like the consequences of your actions, you can change things to put yourself into more favorable circumstances. Then you say >Every lesson from nature is consistent with the >ideas that only the fittest survive Look up Lynn Margulies, who's a biochemist, I think. Her ideas are quite different than survival of the fittest. About success having a deadline, I don't know. If there is a deadline, it's millennia away. Seems to me you're putting undue pressure on yourself. Best wishes, Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 21:33:24 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: evolution Message-ID: <199701050246.VAA15373@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Michael writes: >To learn is also inherited. Some will never learn and it remains to be seen >whether they are entirely responsible or victims of "fate". It looks like >the Christian pre-ordination dogma is to be dusted of. Aha, the old argument of heredity vs. environment. I'll agree that some people are born more intelligent than others, but a lot of good learning comes with training by skilled teachers. We had a girl in school who was really not bright enough to go to university. She studied day and night, and in the end she got her degree. >I have seen this example occur many times with people I know/knew, yet >wonder whether it is psychology or karma. Michael, I don't have any objections to your calling it psychology. I think psychology is one of the realms of knowledge which gives us greater insight into how what I call Karma works. If you build levees and high sandbanks at a place on the side of a river where it's in the habit of flooding every Spring, you're using your knowledge of physical science, hoping to keep the houses on the bank of the river out of harm's way. Having your house flooded or not is also Karma, and by building a levee, you might be changing it for the better. If you're unlucky, the levee isn't high enough. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:52:05 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Evolution/hell/genes Message-ID: <199701050752.XAA08303@proxy2.ba.best.com> Michael: >Here we enter again into pure speculation. A so-called >sinner may be the victim of inherited family traits. To >conguer them might also be inborn. A sinner might be >considered a sick person. Hell may be a cozy place to some >minds. I always wonder whether sociopaths have it better than us as far as being tortured by guilt feeling. I try to have the satisfaction by thinking that once somebody commits a heinous act, that s/he would be in his/her own Edgar Allen Poe hell of guilt. From some cases I have seen, they sleep soundly, while I torture myself over an inadvertent social faux pas. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:51:55 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Relationships Message-ID: <199701050751.XAA08140@proxy2.ba.best.com> JRC: >Sometimes I wonder what would happen if every religion on >earth decided to issue a proclamation - saying that for >the course of but one single year, everyone ought to >completely forget about loving "God", or "Humanity", and >focus instead completely on attempting - for that one >single year - to love just *one* other person ... but to >love that person as well and completely as was humanly >possible. Great point there. Remember the saying that you always hurt the one you love the most? It's sometimes easier to be on best behavior while in public or in a church, and then show your worst face at home. God is divine. Humanity is a grand abstract concept. A personal relationship can be mundane and sometimes a nuisance. However, to start at home by acknowledging the divine in our family members, to love them unconditionally, be responsive to their needs, to give to them completely, can be the start of learning how to acknowledge the divine in all living beings. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 23:52:28 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <199701050752.XAA08515@proxy2.ba.best.com> Chuck the Heretic: >But I got this weird idea. I wonder what would happen on >the list if people posted their pictures. If a face were >associated with a name, would it improve the level of >discourse? Looking at how heated discussions can sometimes get, the pictures would make great dart boards. Besides, everyone would be in great danger of having their pictures put in compromising and comical positions by us great computer graphics manipulators. >Ann, >Sorry to disappoint all my fans, but all my pictures of me >have my clothes >on. >Chuck the Heretic (who catches cold easily) With Photoshop, I can change that. Would you like the body of the latest Playgirl pin up? TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:21:36 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Evolution/hell/genes Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970106033352.1b5fb95e@iprolink.co.nz> Michael, [Liesel] >Since I read a book on chaos theory, I don't believe anymore that survival >of the fittest is the only valid mode by means of which organisms survive. >Sometimes rivals adapt to each other, sometimes they learn to live in >different spheres, like one in air and one underground, sometimes they >learn to cooperate with each other to reach a common goal. [Michael] I am also fascinated by the Chaos theory which may give us new clues. Yes, whether survival of the fittest is the real drive behind evolution remains to be seen. It is an upward surge filled with suffering and delight. [Murray in response] Following on with my themes of connectedness and holism, I'd say that survival of the fittest plays a part, but is only one of the levels of influence on physical lifeforms and is likely to be embedded in a matrix of factors such as emotional states of the creature and their effect on physical health, and the development of cooperative ways, not to mention subtle interactions with the environment. It would be circular too, eg physical states affecting the feeling level and vice-versa. Science has made so much of survival of the fittest because for a long time, that's about all it had to work with. Things are a-changing indeed. I think your "upward surge" idea is pointing the right way towards a general causation and empowering from within outwards. On a more homely level, what about plain ol' fun too? Kittens and lambs and the young of just about any species have fun, yet has there much written about the effects of fun on physical health in creatures other than humans? Whether it's effect or cause - again, I believe there are cross-plane influences, going both ways, but certainly the hormones of fun are kinder to the body than those of fear and anger. Even oldies can have fun - if they believe they can. In fact, in some ways, oldies are freer to have fun than youngsters. Fun is probably a sub-octave of the intense note of joy that is said to permeate the universe in the realms of unbounded consciousness. [Liesel] >You'd like to know my definition of sin as opposed to erring. Sin, to me >is unforgiveable. The sinner lands in hell. [Michael] Here we enter again into pure speculation. A so-called sinner may be the victim of inherited family traits. To conguer them might also be inborn. A sinner might be considered a sick person. Hell may be a cozy place to some minds. [Murray] I turn to the original meaning of sin - a falling short of the mark. I suppose there can be huge misses, by a mile, as well as little ones. :-) Certainly, some minds carry their hell around with them all the time. [Michael] To learn is also inherited. Some will never learn and it remains to be seen whether they are entirely responsible or victims of "fate". It looks like the Christian pre-ordination dogma is to be dusted of. [Murray] I believe there is joint responsibility, in due proportion, so that while a person has a primary reponsibility for what they do, nobody is an island, and as we are all co-creators, we create influences and circumstances that affect other people, and so share responsibility for the outcomes. But pre-ordination has a natural meaning in the sense that karma is a *condition* of things or energies, like momentum, rather than a strange and separate energy or action-at-a-distance that people so often seem to think it is. Pre-ordainment is then the *momentum* of things set in motion before, that will tend to continue in their direction unless other energy is expended to change the direction and strength of that movement or dissolve it altogether, as healing or forgiveness might do in some cases. The momentum is so strong and specific sometimes, that an event is virtually pre-ordained, and IMO could be reliably forseen by a suitably sensitive person. When less strong, it is just a tendency and while a sensitive might pick up the outcome that would follow as an extrapolaton from the situation as it is, that perceived outcome could be quite readily changed before it precipitates into physical reality. [Michael] I have seen this example occur many times with people I know/knew, yet wonder whether it is psychology or karma. [Murray] Why not both? The psychological aspect of karma and the karmic aspect of psychology. Very balanced and Zen-like, I know! :-) Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 21:23:59 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970106033615.1b5f027e@iprolink.co.nz> Chuck, >Considering the trouble Gerda gets me into around there, I should be >thankful you don't remember us, but then there are so many people that >come through Olcott, I'm not surprised. What were you doing, not being noticed enough by me to remember you 7 years later? Must have been a quiet spell. Maybe Gerda had you more under control then .... >But I got this weird idea. I wonder what would happen on the list if >people posted their pictures. If a face were associated with a name, >would it improve the level of discourse? There's only one way to find out, guess. But I'm still thinking about why a brief physical description made the impression it did on me, sort of carrying an energy that was different from the spectrum that usually comes across from the words, a bit like a directed beam. If we all did that, it might have a positive result. Notice that I'm not volunteering to be second, though. Maybe third .... >Now a packed room and flying vegetables, that's another matter but that >hasn't happened yet, at least not to me. Really?? Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 13:26:05 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Loving oneself Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970105122605.0068325c@xs4all.nl> JRC wrote: >Sometimes I wonder what would happen if every religion on earth decided to >issue a proclamation - saying that for the course of but one single year, >everyone ought to completely forget about loving "God", or "Humanity", and >focus instead completely on attempting - for that one single year - to >love just *one* other person How about the most difficult task: loving oneself? Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 16:38:22 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32cfd8b9.924222@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Although human beings can accomplish great wonders by the exercise of free will, it has its limits. There are unchangeable, universal laws, about which human beings have no control. Some of these laws have been partially discovered by human beings. None of them were invented by human beings. Morality exists independently of human perception. Human beings have no choice about the moral value of any alternative, but only which alternative to choose. Although they can choose to be dishonest about their beliefs, human beings have no choice about what those beliefs are. Nor are preferences a matter of choice. Only what to choose in response to preferences is subject to choice. Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws. Their beliefs about them are unique mixtures of truth and falsehood, but the extent to which a belief is true or false depends on the objectively-existing laws themselves, not on the subject who has the belief. Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics. We may use them, but they exist independently of us. They cannot be changed. Probabilities exist objectively . These probabilities can be partially perceived, but not changed. Human beings cannot do anything for which they have no motive. Choice is necessary, but not sufficient, for behavior to occur. Human beings have no choice about their motives, but only in how to respond to their motives. Free will depends on non-omniscience. Assuming that randomness is not inherent (a belief which which with many scientists disagree), an omniscient being would have no free will. Uncertainty about the best alternative is necessary for free will to exist. Reality can be defined as that which free will cannot affect. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 14:15:41 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Greetings from America Message-ID: <32D0280D.365D@withoutwalls.com> I just want to say "hi" to all of those attending the Theosophy convention in New Zealand. I hope you have a good time and find a liitle bit of what you're looking for. Sincerely, 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, 6 Jan 1997 01:18:36 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <970106011827_613324644@emout13.mail.aol.com> Murray, I think in 1989 Gerda and I weren't really doing much that would gather notice other than tinkering with starting a federation. The staff were probably trying to hide me from you for fear you would flee back to New Zealand and say terrible things about the American Section. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:21:08 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <970106012107_944660149@emout17.mail.aol.com> It would be hard to find a compromising position that someone has not already found me in, but there are probably a few left. But then, that might help sell books. No such thing as bad publicity. And trading in this body is not a bad idea. One time when I was putting a performance art project together a prospective actress asked me if there would be any nudity. I told her not because with a body like mine the less of it that is seen the better. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:28:23 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Merry Xmas to Theos-l Message-ID: <970106012822_1458863170@emout16.mail.aol.com> It sure is a relief to the poor camera. Chuck the heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 06:26:07 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Justice and Love Message-ID: <32d09a77.50521223@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> I am unclear about how justice and love relate to each other. Are they an example of yin and yang, with justice being an example of the masculine yang and love being an example of the feminine yin? Jesus said, "you have heard that it was said by them of old, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'love your enemies.'" Did he mean to do away with justice and replace it with love, or might he have meant to balance the two? Shouldn't love for others be balanced with standing up for one's own rights, or is it never right to be selfish in that way? If love should rule over justice, does that mean that we should let others take advantage of us and trust that justice is inevitable? Isn't revenge based on the quest for justice, and yet isn't it also the antithesis of love? Does forgiveness mean being a doormat? The ongoing political debate between left wing and right wing could be characterized with these two concepts. The individualistic, competitive right wing stresses justice, whereas the collectivistic, cooperative left wing stresses unity. Is one better than the other or should they be balanced? They are closely related. Justice for individuals maximizes the incentive to contribute to society. Too much competition destroys the social fabric. Too much cooperation destroys individual strength. I lean toward believing that justice and love are equal opposites which should be balanced. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 07:10:17 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: karma Message-ID: <32d5a2a1.52610899@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 5 Jan 97, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >Tom, hope you don't mind if I need to disagree with you. I'm afraid that can't be tolerated. >My concept of Karma >isn't that sin is unforgiveable because its consequences are inevitable. If >I believed that, what would be the use of trying to do anything right, or >better than last time? Why not just give up? The effect on motivation would be just the opposite. That the consequences of sin are believed to be both negative and inevitable motivates one not to sin. By "inevitable," I did not mean that habits of sin cannot be changed, as you seem to have understood me to mean. >Then you say >>Every lesson from nature is consistent with the >>ideas that only the fittest survive >Look up Lynn Margulies, who's a biochemist, I think. Her ideas are quite >different than survival of the fittest. Species would not survive as long as they do if the fittest did not survive. The more that genetic qualities that tend toward the death of individuals are eliminated, the more that the species will survive. The survival of the fittest is compatible with other, more cooperative, factors in survival. >About success having a deadline, I don't know. If there is a deadline, it's >millennia away. Seems to me you're putting undue pressure on yourself. I thought everyone knew that the end of the world was going to be in the year 2000. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:18:25 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Of mice and poverty Message-ID: > > In message , CDGertrude > writes > >Gertrude -the poor as a - Churchmouse > >-- > Poor? POOR? Churchmice hold collections for me ... > > Alan :-) > --------- > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: > http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ > E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk > Not this churchmouse...... (g) -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:34:03 -0600 (CST) From: cdgert@ripco.com (CDGertrude) Subject: Re: Evolution/hell/genes Message-ID: -- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:41:48 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 794 Message-ID: As some gullible people may think, the episode of how they changed the Byelaws at the time Bing ran, has not gone away. Still there are a lot of thinking members who have not forgotten neither what was done nor the then players. Glad that you are fully aware of the details. Newbees may not know any of the past deeds of TSA. Glad that when they visit here, they have access to the info. What you see is not what you get. MKR On Sat, 4 Jan 1997 Lmhem111@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 97-01-03 06:33:47 EST, you write: > > Re the open BOD proposal, Chuck the Heretic says, "I think I already know > what the answer will be. It will be cold day in the south of hell when they > open those meetings to the members." > > I am afraid I have to agree. Look at what happened behind closed doors when > they sabatoged Big Escudero's bid for the Presidency of the TSA (not just > once but twice). They fixed the elections a la Chicago-style politics and > burned the ballots too. You can't do that kind of stuff at open meetings. > > That's why I don't participate actively anymore. Disillusioned to say the > least. So I created my own "home Lodge" with a 3500 volume esoteric library. > Enough to keep me busy 'till it's time to go to that Great Lodge beyond the > veil, composed hopefully of electic theosophists (with a small "t"). > > LunarPitri > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:20:52 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Welcome Message-ID: THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Daniel Tomberg from Sweden! daniel.tomberg@umea.mail.telia.com Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 04:44:31 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Credit where credit is due Message-ID: <32D0F3A6.25D9@withoutwalls.com> Liesel wrote: >I think we have ideals, and then I think there's the every day where we're >at. I was very far from a lot of my ideals when I was younger, but I find >that when you try to acquire a certain quality you often do acquire at >least part of it over the years. So I wouldn't just look at each other's >feet of clay, nor at your own, but also at what you've achieved in your >relationships. That was my whole point. To try and pay attention to your relationships right at home and in your immediate circles. To nurture love and character qualities there, as far as possible, rather than in some "pie in the sky" notion of a "spirituality" that keeps you from getting dirty, ever having to take any emotional risks or expend any real effort. In one lifetime, unless you're a public figure or somebody like that, the number of people you'll actually have any relationship with is relatively small. Love's opportunity stares us straight in the face and usually calls us by name. Mark "If you want to swim, you've got to get in the water." -------- 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, 6 Jan 1997 13:41:56 -0500 From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: THEOS-L digest 796 Message-ID: <199701061342_MC2-E4F-8A5C@compuserve.com> Message text written by INTERNET:theos-l@vnet.net >ichael: >Here we enter again into pure speculation. A so-called >sinner may be the victim of inherited family traits. To >conguer them might also be inborn. A sinner might be >considered a sick person. Hell may be a cozy place to some >minds. I always wonder whether sociopaths have it better than us as far as being tortured by guilt feeling. I try to have the satisfaction by thinking that once somebody commits a heinous act, that s/he would be in his/her own Edgar Allen Poe hell of guilt. From some cases I have seen, they sleep soundly, while I torture myself over an inadvertent social faux pas. TTT< Keith Price: I haven't written much lately, but this post among other things caught my attention in the sense that our experience of everything has a SUBJECTIVE quality and this is often expanded to mean that we create our own reality, in new age parlance. There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so and one man's meat is another man't poison and hevean and hell are right here right now. I have always been interested in my own subjectivity and have more than other focused on MY internal states, even on this list. I recently had a manic phase and now I am getting my comeupance. I think the pendulum of karma swings sometime slowly, but grinds very fine -- to mix a metaphor. Thus one gets what one needs over many lifetimes and thus we create our own spiritual AURIC EGG so to speack, some of ours are more cracked than others, but probably have been swung by karma more too. Thus I think a high minded, objective spirituality of the MIDDLE ROAD the Madyamika is probably some kind of sign of spiritual evolution -- sometimes it looks very boring too me - and sometimes I'd rather be bored than suffering and not suffering can be heaven indeed. Namaste New Year Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:57:03 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <199701061957.OAA24673@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > . . . Too much cooperation destroys individual strength. > I doubt that this planet has seen that phenomena since Man/Woman took that first step out of the garden. Too much cooperation . . . what a concept! Individual strength would be merged into the group to create group strength. Independent as a person, but the emphasis would be on group work. We'd be knocking each other out of the way to help each other and probablly be on our way to the next level of the game. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:48:33 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 794 Message-ID: <199701061957.OAA24647@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: m.k. ramadoss > > As some gullible people may think, the episode of how they changed the > Byelaws at the time Bing ran, has not gone away. Still there are a lot of > thinking members who have not forgotten neither what was done nor the > then players. Glad that you are fully aware of the details. > > Newbees may not know any of the past deeds of TSA. Glad that when they > visit here, they have access to the info. What you see is not what you get. > I have found the information sketchy at best. I only have a basic idea of what happened when Bing ran. And newbies coming onto this list just catch a hint of it in conversations. If you want to inform people about the secrecy that is part of administration, you're going to have to make a FAQ available, so that you don't have to keep explaining the story over and over again. Right now, lurkers and others are getting the information in a way that is similar to holding their ear up to the wall and catching parts of the conversation. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:31:15 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Of mice and poverty Message-ID: <+2D5OJATEW0yEw01@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message , CDGertrude writes >Not this churchmouse...... >(g) >-- :-( Right now I have: a} A runny nose b) A sore throat d) the shivers So ... senders of private mail will (I hope) forgive me if there is a delay in my replies ... 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, 06 Jan 1997 15:38:27 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <32D162C3.20DC@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >As far as I know, the latest in scientific knowledge is that there >is inherent randomness, which, if true, makes a deterministic >"cause-and-effect" view of karma not the whole story. You are correct. The "inherent randomness" exists at the quantum level, and periodically effects our everyday level in what I have called the Chaos Factor. Karma as deterministic is purely an exoteric teaching, not much better than saying "God's will," and no longer scientifically acceptable. Chaos and randomness allow for creativity, and without them, this woould be a pretty dull place. However, the most important fallout of the inherent randomness of karma, is that the teaching of instant enlightenment, the extinquishing of one's accumulated karma, now can be seen to be a possibility. As long as we look at karma as an endless series of deterministic cause-effect, there cannot ever be an end to it. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 21:48:32 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <32d26fa9.6113317@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 6 Jan 97, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: >---------- >> From: Tom Robertson >> >> . . . Too much cooperation destroys individual strength. >> >I doubt that this planet has seen that phenomena since >Man/Woman took that first step out of the garden. > >Too much cooperation . . . what a concept! > >Individual strength would be merged into the group to create >group strength. Independent as a person, but the emphasis would be >on group work. > >We'd be knocking each other out of the way to help each >other and probablly be on our way to the next level of the game. This reflects the unrealistic assumption that human beings are trustworthy. The more people that are involved in a cooperative agreement, the more likely it is that at least one individual will cheat on the agreement. And it only takes one apple to spoil the whole pie, or, as Jesus said, "a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough." One cheater can wipe out all the gains of many people involved in an agreement. The less that people's results are connected to their own efforts, the less incentive they have to act. The more that people trust each other, the more profit there is in cheating, since it will not be expected, and the number of cheaters will increase. The less that people trust each other, the less profit there will be in cheating, and the number of cheaters will decrease. There is an equilibrium level of cheating. Too much cooperation is when people trust each other more than is justified, the inevitable result being that losses due to cheating, compared to the benefits of the agreement, are more than they would be at the optimal level. "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:28:07 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." "A conservative is someone who worships a dead liberal." -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 18:38:45 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Computer Tit Bits Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970107003845.006bbc9c@mail.eden.com> Hi Here is something some of you may be interested in. For the last several weeks I have been running a self-assembled Cyrix P166+ powered system with no problems. Just yesterday I found out that the mother board not have the usual user replaceable 3 volt lithium battery; instead it had an encapsulated real time clock and battery made by Odin. When the battery runs out, which may be anywhere between 2 years and up, the whole assembly has to be unsoldered -- I think there were about 16 connectors and new one unsoldered -- without ruining the motherboard. So I dismantled the system and replaced it with a motherboard which has a user replaceable 3 volt lithium battery that one can pick up at a corner drug store or large grocery store. If and when the battery runs out, it can be changed in a matter of minutes. I do not know why the manufacturers do not make things simple and have a built-in time bomb which will go off at the most unexpected time at which you are working on a time-critical job. I hope the above may open up your eyes. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:13:24 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <199701070113.UAA27486@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > On Mon, 6 Jan 97, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: > >---------- > >> From: Tom Robertson > >> > >> . . . Too much cooperation destroys individual strength. > >> > >We'd be knocking each other out of the way to help each > >other and probablly be on our way to the next level of the game. > > This reflects the unrealistic assumption that human beings are trustworthy. > > The more people that are involved in a cooperative agreement, the more > likely it is that at least one individual will cheat on the agreement. And > it only takes one apple to spoil the whole pie, or, as Jesus said, "a > little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough." One cheater can wipe out > all the gains of many people involved in an agreement. The less that > people's results are connected to their own efforts, the less incentive > they have to act. The more that people trust each other, the more profit > there is in cheating, since it will not be expected, and the number of > cheaters will increase. The less that people trust each other, the less > profit there will be in cheating, and the number of cheaters will decrease. > There is an equilibrium level of cheating. Too much cooperation is when > people trust each other more than is justified, the inevitable result being > that losses due to cheating, compared to the benefits of the agreement, are > more than they would be at the optimal level. > Sounds like you've been burned. My statement regarding "too much cooperation" refers to some future time in the evolution of humanity. What you're describing is the current level of soap opera that pervades our lives. -AEB > "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:09:49 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <199701070209.TAA26337@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote in response to Ann: >This reflects the unrealistic assumption that human beings are trustworthy. This does go back to the conservative theory that people are irrational (thereby justifying elitism). There will come a day when it is finally realized that people are inherently good. People naturally want to trust, and do. The belief and acceptance of trust is also based on rational thought. Trustworthiness is established when specific criteria have been met, when it is shown that in particular circumstances, one can be trusted. It is peculiar how conservatives claim the supremacy of the individual, yet, go on to declare that trusting one may be your undoing. >The more that people trust each other, the more profit >there is in cheating, since it will not be expected, and the number of >cheaters will increase. This conclusion has been proven wrong by history. It is when people don't trust each other that cheating increases. Anxiety that one may not receive what one needs is conducive to cheating. Insecurity, fear, and suspicion propel individuals to adopt less than honest conduct to cope and survive. >The less that people trust each other, the less >profit there will be in cheating, and the number of cheaters will decrease. Again, looking around you will prove this assessment false. Cheating is abundant today, not because people overly trust each other, but because people don't trust each other enough. >"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." "A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:39:36 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701070239.TAA27674@snowden.micron.net> Titus wrote: >>> I admit there are people who I wonder about (half serious here), but a >>> little voice inside me whispers the question, "Why would God create someone >>> who is damned?" Unless "God" is a wasteful "God" or prone to fundamental error, I do not see how the answer to your question could be anything but "S/He/It wouldn't." >True in a sense. But on grand time scales, I think human beings *are* an >exception. Man, having consciousness, has a different destiny than mineral, >plant or animal life. A different destiny? How many different destinies are there? >Jesus also drew many analogies with human life from >nature, nevertheless He put man on a different footing than anything else in >creation. For example (Matthew 10:29-31) > >"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on >the ground without your Father ... > >"Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." Ecclesiastes 4: 18-21 "I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so they they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so does the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (New International) >>> It really boils down to how God can give us free will, but nevertheless >>> keep us from using that free will to permanently get on the wrong track. >>> Though it looks ridiculously simple, the answer is: karma! Karma, in a way, has negated the need for God. Karma takes the place of God, performs all justice, offers all reward. What is God's role as long as karma rules? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 22:09:05 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the limits of free will Message-ID: <199701070322.WAA02673@ultra1.dreamscape.com> I believe that the ring-pass -not for free will is determined by our bodies, including the invisible ones. A human being has free will as long as his/her bodies, heredity, habits, will power will let him/her. (There may be other factors tending to inhibit. Those are the ones I can think of just now.) As to the idea that , I think anthropology doesn't always go along with that. In some Esquimo tribes, the man politely offers his wife to a visitor; Arabs are often polygamous; it is considered ok to kill an enemy in war; and the morals of killing and misusing animals change in different societies. The Spaniards love their bull fights, and many people wear furs. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 22:15:12 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the limits of free will Message-ID: <199701070328.WAA03414@ultra1.dreamscape.com> I thought of another item that can limit free will ... natural happenings. If you're in the path of a flood or an erupting volcano, your choices might become very limited. Can you explain what you mean by this. I don't understand it. >Reality can be defined as that which free will cannot affect.> Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 22:44:11 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: limits of free will Message-ID: <199701070357.WAA06808@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws. Their beliefs about >them are unique mixtures of truth and falsehood, but the extent to which a >belief is true or false depends on the objectively-existing laws >themselves, not on the subject who has the belief. Na, Tom, that's not the way I see it, sorry. I think philosophy, logic and math are built on some basic assumptions that human beings made to start with. We all need to live by a belief system, but we don't all base our belief systems on the same basic philosophies. People who belong to the same societal group often have similar belief systems, but people of other societies might base their beliefs on quite a different philosophy or logic. I have built up my own belief system over the years, by adopting & discarding certain philosophical and other laws which I considered as they came came my way. I try to adopt the ones which are the most helpful to me (and don't harm others). I remember a Theosophical lecturer coming to one of our meetings, talking about that if everyone were at peace with him(her)self, there would be peace in the world. I thought that was useful, so I've been striving for peace withint myself ever since. Also beliefs I cherished as a child, or young adult, are now no longer useful and have been discarded for ones more useful to me today. Maybe it was useful for me to believe in Santa Claus when I was little. Maybe only to give my parents the joy of thinking how cute I was. It wouldn't be cute now anymore, now that I've grown up. >Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics. >We may use them, but they exist independently of us. They cannot be >changed. Laws that have changed recently: A quark can be particles or waves; time, space and matter are interrelated; in view of the pictures sent back by the Hubbel telescope the universe looks quite different now than it did before; the origin of the universe was the big bang; when we see the light of a distant star, we see light emitted perhaps thousands of years ago. Something exists independently of us, but since we can't perceive the whole thing, we don't really know what it's like, we can only tell what it seems like to us. > Probabilities exist objectively . These probabilities can be partially >perceived, but not changed. "Thus I have heard" Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 22:23:25 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theosophy in Ukraine ? Message-ID: <32D1CFBD.3538@eden.com> Hi Here is some interesting info. If the request is legit, I believe there are those who are willing to help. It is interesting to note Theosophy is mentioned in the usenet post. MKR ------------------------------------------ Article 9 of 440 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 00:00:00 GMT From: Carmen Colombo Subject: Re: Help our cause! Message-Id: <32CFED5C.6619@axess.com> References: <329DD7F0.6880@starling.dp.ua> <32AAA741.3B0F@ozemail.com.au> <32CBFD4A.315C@gwaller.demon.co.uk> <32CB73AA.1722@nauticom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii Organization: Wish Only Well Communications Inc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) Beth wrote: > > Geoffwaller@gwaller.demon.co.uk wrote: > > > > Nemesis wrote: > > > > > > Igor Voloshin wrote: > > > > > > > > Ladies and gentlemen! > > > > > > > > We are group of young Ukrainian programmers which are fond of the > > > > Internet and eager to make it wider and better. We want to organize new > > > > Internet servers in our city. But besides desire and know-how we need > > > > funds to do it. Our country with it s present woeful economic situation > > > > can t support us... But growing Internet here will greatly work towards > > > > the economical uprising of the Ukraine. > > > > We believe strongly in great peoples unity - The Internet. And we hope > > > > that you, who read this, would generously send to us any negligible for > > > > you sum of money in US $ on address below. The Internet will become > > > > richer and thus all of you will become richer! > > > > Our interests cover philosophy and theosophy, fuzzy logic and neural > > > > networking,computer graphics and animation, Linux and Delphi, Ukrainian > > > > culture and J.R.R.Tolkien s Fairy Universe, so indicate your e-mail and > > > > you will receive our cordial acknowledgment with the possibilities to > > > > discuss topics above! > > > > > > > > Our address is: p.o. box 298, 320122, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine. > > > > > > > > Yours sincerely Igor Voloshin, on errand of my friends. > > > > > > CHEW ME IVAN YOU DIP SHIT# > > > > WHO YOU TRYING TO FOOL GREGOR.....SPAMMING BASTARD > > I'm ashamed to see this kind of response to someone who obviously lives > in the Ukraine. Perhap this is a non-legit request, but he doesn't > deserve this kind of response. It reflects badly on > Americans...presuming this kind of language came from American member of > the group. "Just say No" in a civilized fashion, if you believe he's > trying to swindle you out of a few dollars. Maybe he's for real...if so, > shame on you, Geoff!!! Hi! I don't know about this cause, so I would like some more information. But if these people from the Ukraine are sincere in wanting to do something good and positive both for themselves and for their world, then we at WOW would like to help. We can't offer monetary assistance, but we will offer free space on our site to help get exposure and hopefully help from the many people from around the world who visit WOW! Please repsond by mentioning your url or relevant info, so that we can all help out. I am certain that there are many people out there who truly wish only well .. Looking forward to hearing from you, and happy new year to all! Carmen Colombo http://www.wowzone.com ====================================================================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 23:11:17 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: justice and love Message-ID: <199701070424.XAA09895@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >Jesus said, "you have heard that it was said by them of old, 'an eye for an >eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'love your enemies.'" >Did he mean to do away with justice and replace it with love, or might he >have meant to balance the two? Shouldn't love for others be balanced with >standing up for one's own rights, or is it never right to be selfish in >that way? If love should rule over justice, does that mean that we should >let others take advantage of us and trust that justice is inevitable? >Isn't revenge based on the quest for justice, and yet isn't it also the >antithesis of love? Does forgiveness mean being a doormat?> You come up with the darndest ideas, Tom. This, I think, is a good one. How about there should be justice, but it should be meted out with Love. I capitalized Love, because I think with justice goes more empathy, or apagape kind of love. I would give as an example that a teenager might get into trouble with the law out of sheer boredom, not having anything to do, not having family which gives a hoot. I would put a kid like that in a situation which would try to make up for the lacks in his life. I'd do it behind bars, if that's what the situatiion called for, but I'd give him something else to think about, like a ged, or a trade with which he could make a living, or help his imagination so he'll do more constructive things with his leisure time. I think that's loving rather than "stick him in jail, & let him rot," rather than expose him to being raped by the more seasoned inmates, and/or getting him hooked some more on heroin or whatever. That's justice with a vengeance, which in my estimation backfires. He'll be a crook for life after he gets out. If somebody works with him, he may have a chance. That kidn of love I think should rule justice. I think it's perfectly ok to be selfish in that you need to stand up for your own rights. I've found that usually what's best for one party, is also good for the other. like if you're dealing with a bully, you put your foot down. I don't believe in someone being totally unselfish. It's ok to be the one to give in at times, but being a doormat isn't healthy, I don't think. Sometimes you have to inist on having things your way. As for forgiveness meaning that you'll be a doormat, I like to go by Martin Luther King's non-violent dictum "Hate the deed, but love the doer". One of my teachers, Serge King, taught us that if you're unforgiving, the resentment festers inside you , and keeps you from feeling good. With that in mind, I try my darndest to forgive. It's hard for me, because my whole family works on holding grudges against each other, but I realize that isn't the easiest way, so I try real hard to forgive the person, because they're human & make mistakes. I don't have to forget what they did to me that upset me so much. Hope that helps to clarify. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 23:40:17 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32D1D3B1.1026@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > Morality exists independently of human perception. Human beings have no > choice about the moral value of any alternative, but only which alternative > to choose. Each alternative touches many moral axioms. How they are weighted depends on the individual. Not even the Mahatmas could agree on the moral rectitude of many actions; do you know something they didn't? > Although they can choose to be dishonest about their beliefs, human beings > have no choice about what those beliefs are. Please explain this; on the surface, it is trivial to disprove. > Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws. Perhaps you are changing the English language to suit yourself? BY DEFINITION, human beings have choices about philosophical laws, as philosophical laws exist only in the human mind (once they can be proven to exist outside the human mind, they become SCIENTIFIC laws). > Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics. > We may use them, but they exist independently of us. They cannot be > changed. Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be changed at will. In general, however, the change has to be useful in order for it to be widely accepted. The most recent major change in the laws of mathematics was the invention of imaginary numbers. > Probabilities exist objectively . These probabilities can be partially > perceived, but not changed. Except by altering the system. > Human beings cannot do anything for which they have no motive. Choice is > necessary, but not sufficient, for behavior to occur. Human beings have no > choice about their motives, but only in how to respond to their motives. Can you say, "reflex"? There are certainly philosophical and religious systems within which free will does not exist which are not self-contradictory or violate scientific knowledge (in plain English, they are valid). It is simply that you have failed to create one, with this try. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 23:47:45 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <32D1D571.791A@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > Jesus said, "you have heard that it was said by them of old, 'an eye for an > eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'love your enemies.'" Was Jesus contradicting the Old Testament, or augmenting it? Remember, the law of "eye for an eye" was a reaction to the Hammurabic code which would demand two eyes for an eye; it was not a law of cruelty but a law of justice; the loss of the guilty party should only serve to restore the loss of the agrieved party; a literal "eye for an eye" would only take place if it were possible to transplant the eye of the guilty party into the socket of the victim, and have it work. When Jesus says "love your enemies", he is saying that just because you are owed compensation does not require that you accept it, and certainly means that you should not bear a grudge, for if you do, then you are not accepting the compensation as sufficient: you don't want an eye for an eye, you want an eye and a grudge for an eye. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 01:07:19 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Of mice and poverty Message-ID: <970107005425_1790468061@emout14.mail.aol.com> Alan, You have a massive dose of sympathy and two machines sending healing energy. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Jan 7 01:21:29 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Advice to Alan Message-ID: <199701070621.BAA26607@envirolink.org> TAKE THERA-FLU. Max-Str. Night time. Does wonders. Just make sure you don't have to do anything for a couple of days:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 05:40:05 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32d1de7f.850348@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> JRC wrote: >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*. I don't particularly care about the politics of the TS, and I have never seen the slightest bit of suppression of ideas in the 3 years that I have been involved. If anything, new members are encouraged too much to say what they have to say. I found the above statement to be incredible when I first heard it, but, just to prove how open-minded I can be, I thought I would ask Willamay Pym about the Boston Lodge fiasco, to which I believe it is referring. She said that she was a member of the national board while it was going on, and she got the biggest kick tonight out of my repetition of the above statement. She told me that there was a dispute over the property owned by the Boston Lodge, that HQ feared that individuals would end up keeping property that belonged to the scoiety, and she described the idea that $500,000 was spent suing them, as well as the idea that HQ would sue any of its lodges because they studied Alice Bailey, as "crazy." It's a close one, but I think I will take Willamay's word for it over the word of someone who thinks it would be "cool" if Alexis was still around. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 01:54:01 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Law of Karma? Message-ID: <970107005558_1923845473@emout16.mail.aol.com> Jerry, Actually, Karma can be extinguished by turning three dials:) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 10:57:11 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Subjective Reality Message-ID: <199701071857.KAA12342@proxy3.ba.best.com> Keith Price: >...our experience of everything has a SUBJECTIVE >quality and this is often expanded to mean that we create >our own reality, in new age parlance. There is nothing >good or bad, but thinking makes it so and one man's meat >is another man't poison and hevean and hell are right >here right now. >I have always been interested in my own subjectivity and >have more than other focused on MY internal states, even >on this list. I recently had a manic phase and now I am >getting my comeupance. I have a friend who's sanity depends on pills. He sometimes "forgets" to take them so that he could have a dialogue with God and communicate with the mystical. His suffering comes when he has to deal with the mundane, a job, a wife, his children, or the consequences of his madness. When he is enthusiastic or happy, he's talking about the new world that he had just drawn or written about, he's talking about communicating with God via the TV, or he's talking about how his minor hexes work. I don't know when he is truly happy or suffering, but on the surface, that is what it appears to me. Communicating with God during his manic episodes give it a purpose. It relieves some of his suffering. Are the people who claim that they can actually talk to God really talking to God? Are they special communication vessels for God? Or are they just mad? Similarly, what about those who were able to communicate with the Divine through rigorous exercises and meditation? Were they special people who have been able to finely tune their senses to pick up signals from the Divine? Are most people just plain insensitive to the miracles around them, having undeveloped senses? Or are they just very sane? I heard that Joan of Arc was insane. Right now, the humming of my printer sounds like the eternal Ohm. I sometimes envy my friend's ability to let go of the constraints of everyday life just by tossing away some pills. On the other hand, I understand the fear of being uncertain of one's sanity moment to moment. Everyday, I am uncertain of what my subjective experience will be like. The sun could be shining both days, but one day could be full of hope and the Divine is everywhere, and the other day the Divine is non-existent. There are stressful days when I wonder how much it would take for my nerves to break. However, I live my life and never came close to losing my sanity. The shadow is always with me, though. The shadow that is capable of heinous acts, immoral acts, a total opposite of what I would do now in my present situation. But I can feel it. I know it's there. I wonder what I would do if I was placed in a situation that would test my convictions. How is it that a whole nation of basically decent people can conspire together to commit awful acts? Look at the Holocaust, look at the Chinese Revolution, look at Apartheid. The kind person can easily turn into one who condemns a fellow human to death. I think that is why artists are often fascinated by the dark side. On the one hand, I wonder why we don't all just create reminders of the light and the goodness. On the other hand, the Divine is in everything. I often disagree to the hiding or shaming of the dark side as if they don't exist. The shaming exists in a listing of the hierarchy of spirituality in most religions. Your physical is in the lower plane. Your emotion is in the lower plane. Sex is in the lower plane. Instead of accepting them as another part of the whole Divine, we condemn them. They shouldn't exist. >I think the pendulum of karma swings sometime slowly, but >grinds very fine-- to mix a metaphor. Thus one gets what >one needs over many lifetimes and thus we create our own >spiritual AURIC EGG so to speack, some of ours are >more cracked than others, but probably have been swung by >karma more too. Accepting the dark side, some of us can choose to be in the light side of subjective reality. I am mad. I chose to not confront. I am lusty. I chose to not give in to desires. I am lazy. I chose to work everyday. I am curious about some of the obvious dark side. I chose to not imbibe in any of it. I am vengeful. I chose to not seek revenge. Some of us have the awareness that we create our own karma, and can act accordingly. My friend has less control over his faculties than a lot of people. However, his karma has placed him smack in a situation where he has to work on it. Through his shaky sanity, he has managed to hold a job for years, deal with a critical wife, and raise two children at his young age. I wonder, though, what opportunity would he have to work on his karma if he did not have those pills. What about those people who are not able to have those pills? How is their karma dealt with? Do they miss the train and have to wait for the next one? Or is suffering during that lifetime is working on karma? What do they learn from that? What do they learn from a constant state of madness? TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 20:34:11 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <32d2afc6.308348@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 7 Jan 97 02:22:25 +0000, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Tom wrote in response to Ann: > >>This reflects the unrealistic assumption that human beings are >>trustworthy. > >This does go back to the conservative theory that people are irrational >(thereby justifying elitism). Your views of liberal and conservative are much different from mine. My idea of a liberal is someone who believes that people in government are so good, and people who are not in government are so helpless without people in government, that big government is necessary to help people not in government get by. My idea of a conservative is someone who believes that the most important issue in politics is that, since power so easily corrupts, no one has too much power, preferring as decentralized and limited a government as possible. >There will come a day when it is finally realized that people are inherently >good. That day will not come until people are actually good. Until then, some people forcing other people to trust everyone else in collective agreements will be justifiably resisted. >People naturally want to trust, and do. They also naturally want to try to get something for nothing, and do. >The belief and acceptance of >trust is also based on rational thought. Trustworthiness is established >when specific criteria have been met, when it is shown that in particular >circumstances, one can be trusted. Ditto for skepticism, when it is shown that one cannot be trusted. >It is peculiar how conservatives claim the supremacy of the individual, yet, >go on to declare that trusting one may be your undoing. Individuals are better equipped to decide whom to trust than is a bureaucracy. >>The more that people trust each other, the more profit >>there is in cheating, since it will not be expected, and the number of >>cheaters will increase. > >This conclusion has been proven wrong by history. It is when people don't >trust each other that cheating increases. It is when people are too gullible that cheating increases. >Anxiety that one may not receive >what one needs is conducive to cheating. Insecurity, fear, and suspicion >propel individuals to adopt less than honest conduct to cope and survive. It works both ways. If people were basically trustworthy, they would have been more likely to have been trusted by those with whom it would have been profitable to do business, and they wouldn't be insecure. Collective karma directly applies to people trusting each other. How much starvation has been caused by a few dishonest people forcing skepticism to be everyone's best choice? >>The less that people trust each other, the less >>profit there will be in cheating, and the number of cheaters will decrease. > >Again, looking around you will prove this assessment false. Cheating is >abundant today, not because people overly trust each other, but because >people don't trust each other enough. Cheating is not caused by people not trusting each other. People not trusting each other is caused by cheating. >>"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." > >"A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested." Arrested? By the very government that he so strongly advocated? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:36:49 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Justice and Love (Re-submission) Message-ID: <199701080136.SAA03507@snowden.micron.net> (This is one of two posts which never showed up, according to my register, on theos-l. If some did receive these posts, I apololgize for the repetition.) Tom wrote in response to Ann: >This reflects the unrealistic assumption that human beings are trustworthy. This does go back to the conservative theory that people are irrational (thereby justifying elitism). There will come a day when it is finally realized that people are inherently good. People naturally want to trust, and do. The belief and acceptance of trust is also based on rational thought. Trustworthiness is established when specific criteria have been met, when it is shown that in particular circumstances, one can be trusted. It is peculiar how conservatives claim the supremacy of the individual, yet go on to declare that trusting one may be your undoing. >The more that people trust each other, the more profit >there is in cheating, since it will not be expected, and the number of >cheaters will increase. This conclusion has been proven wrong by history. It is when people don't trust each other that cheating increases. Anxiety that one may not receive what one needs is conducive to cheating. Insecurity, fear, and suspicion propel individuals to adopt less than honest conduct to cope and survive. >The less that people trust each other, the less >profit there will be in cheating, and the number of cheaters will decrease. Again, looking around you will prove this assessment false. Cheating is abundant today, not because people overly trust each other, but because people don't trust each other enough. >"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." "A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:50:03 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma (Re-submission) Message-ID: <199701080150.SAA04110@snowden.micron.net> Titus wrote: >>> I admit there are people who I wonder about (half serious here), but a >>> little voice inside me whispers the question, "Why would God create someone >>> who is damned?" Unless "God" is a wasteful "God" or prone to fundamental error, I do not see how the answer to that question could be anything but "S/He/It wouldn't." >True in a sense. But on grand time scales, I think human beings *are* an >exception. Man, having consciousness, has a different destiny than mineral, >plant or animal life. A different destiny? How many different destinies are there? >Jesus also drew many analogies with human life from >nature, nevertheless He put man on a different footing than anything else in >creation. For example (Matthew 10:29-31) > >"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on >the ground without your Father ... > >"Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." Ecclesiastes 4: 18-21 "I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so they they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so does the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" (New International) The Good Book seems a bit ambiguous on the subject of the "footing." >>> It really boils down to how God can give us free will, but nevertheless >>> keep us from using that free will to permanently get on the wrong track. >>> Though it looks ridiculously simple, the answer is: karma! Karma, in a way, has negated the need for God. Karma takes the place of God, performs all justice, offers all reward. What is God's role as long as karma rules? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 22:27:18 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970108042718.00683c6c@mail.eden.com> At 10:26 PM 1/6/97 -0500, you wrote: >I believe that the ring-pass -not for free will is determined by our bodies, >including the invisible ones. A human being has free will as long as his/her >bodies, heredity, habits, will power will let him/her. (There may be other >factors tending to inhibit. Those are the ones I can think of just now.) > Liesel: This is one of the best posts I have seen on this subject. It makes sense. Any limits put on us - whatever level of plane, physical, superphysical, I agree that it is not *externally* imposed. It is built in due to physical or non physical bodies or material we are made of. All the literature I have seen have always somehow indicate the ring-pass-not is something externally imposed. >As to the idea that choice about the moral value of any alternative...>, I think anthropology >doesn't always go along with that. In some Esquimo tribes, the man politely >offers his wife to a visitor; Arabs are often polygamous; it is considered >ok to kill an enemy in war; and the morals of killing and misusing animals >change in different societies. The Spaniards love their bull fights, and >many people wear furs. > I guess that once one is able to start logically and objectively think about being in any nation or any situation, I guess one may develop a set of values/morals that one is comfortable with. Such a set of values/morals is likely to help us in our dealings with everyone we come into contact, by what ever medium. It is very hard to be an original thinker when we are faced with enormous pressures brought on us by the social, religious, governmental, "morals", which in the eyes of an original thinker could be *immoral*. MKR >Liesel > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 22:28:48 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970108042848.006958a4@mail.eden.com> At 03:45 PM 1/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >Your views of liberal and conservative are much different from mine. My >idea of a liberal is someone who believes that people in government are so >good, and people who are not in government are so helpless without people >in government, that big government is necessary to help people not in >government get by. My idea of a conservative is someone who believes that >the most important issue in politics is that, since power so easily >corrupts, no one has too much power, preferring as decentralized and >limited a government as possible. > Tom: I completely agree with you on the above. I have seen both sides. Governmental and local individual level. Most things are done most efficiently at the local level -- I would go even at the individual level. Even in businesses, it is the small business owner run businesses are most efficient and most customer responsive. When TS was started, the "Real Founders" knew well aware of the need for total autonomy at the local level, since They knew that is the best and most efficient way to get Theosophy out. Even though Col. Olcott had almost autocratic powers regarding chartering and demitting of lodges and members, he very very rarely got himself involved at lodge level. I am sure that he must have been told by his Bosses in unmistakable terms that it was what was expected of him and he did do it. Some discussion on this can be seen in ML to APS dealing with London Lodge problems. What a change we see in today's situation!!! > >>There will come a day when it is finally realized that people are inherently >>good. > >That day will not come until people are actually good. Until then, some >people forcing other people to trust everyone else in collective agreements >will be justifiably resisted. > > >>People naturally want to trust, and do. > >They also naturally want to try to get something for nothing, and do. > > >>The belief and acceptance of >>trust is also based on rational thought. Trustworthiness is established >>when specific criteria have been met, when it is shown that in particular >>circumstances, one can be trusted. > >Ditto for skepticism, when it is shown that one cannot be trusted. > > >>It is peculiar how conservatives claim the supremacy of the individual, yet, >>go on to declare that trusting one may be your undoing. > >Individuals are better equipped to decide whom to trust than is a >bureaucracy. > > >>>The more that people trust each other, the more profit >>>there is in cheating, since it will not be expected, and the number of >>>cheaters will increase. >> >>This conclusion has been proven wrong by history. It is when people don't >>trust each other that cheating increases. > >It is when people are too gullible that cheating increases. > > >>Anxiety that one may not receive >>what one needs is conducive to cheating. Insecurity, fear, and suspicion >>propel individuals to adopt less than honest conduct to cope and survive. > >It works both ways. If people were basically trustworthy, they would have >been more likely to have been trusted by those with whom it would have been >profitable to do business, and they wouldn't be insecure. Collective karma >directly applies to people trusting each other. How much starvation has >been caused by a few dishonest people forcing skepticism to be everyone's >best choice? > > >>>The less that people trust each other, the less >>>profit there will be in cheating, and the number of cheaters will decrease. >> >>Again, looking around you will prove this assessment false. Cheating is >>abundant today, not because people overly trust each other, but because >>people don't trust each other enough. > >Cheating is not caused by people not trusting each other. People not >trusting each other is caused by cheating. > > >>>"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." >> >>"A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested." > >Arrested? By the very government that he so strongly advocated? > Let me add my 2 cents worth. As like attracts like, I have seen that I had the good fortune of having to deal with a lot of people who can be trusted -- these are both T/theosophists and those who are not. Occassionally we may run into people who cannot be trusted, and usually this is due to the fact that they may try to exploit you for their own political, monetary and other end. Trustworthiness and a person's learning, position, fame, wealth, etc has no correlation at all. Some times I have had surprises. Less learned, less wealthy, working in a routine low pay job, individuals have turned out to be most trustworthy. It looks like when intelligence gets sharpened by education and experience, if there is this pre disposition to selfish ends - that could be monetary or position or fame or even spiritual -- then the untrustworthy traits seem to show their ugly head. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 23:31:08 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <32D3230C.56B4@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Tom wrote in response to Ann: > > >This reflects the unrealistic assumption that human beings are trustworthy. > > This does go back to the conservative theory that people are irrational > (thereby justifying elitism). > > There will come a day when it is finally realized that people are inherently > good. People naturally want to trust, and do. The figures usually quoted are: 10% of the people are inherently untrustworthy, 5% are inherently honest, and the other 85% are generally honest, but can be tempted into dishonesty if the chance of being caught is close to zero. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:14:24 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701080527.AAA08444@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Tom, Then why don't you ask Willa Mae why the Canadian TS and the Danish TS were excommunicated. You can get some more miasinformation to cover up. Come to think of it, why don't you ask her what happened to that part of the proceeds of the sale of the Boston Lodge which went to the TS? Maybe she'll tell you. I can't get anyone to let me know. I'm sure she can also give you a valid-sounding reason why Bing Escudero, after losing 2 presidential elections by very narrow margins, was relieved of his job as national lecturer, and was put to work indexing the "Mahatma Letters", and then laid off. Actually, I'd also like to know why the ES chose an incompetent person such as Dorothy Abbenhouse to be our president. The whole Society went downhill under her leadership. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 00:14:31 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: subjective reality Message-ID: <199701080527.AAA08473@ultra1.dreamscape.com> I'd like to answer Toa Tran a little. You talk about different kinds of madness. The first one with the manic phase, is manic depressive or bipolar. I happen to know a few people who have this disease. They depend on lithium pills as much as a diabetic depends on insulin. You mention one who talks to God during his manic episodes. I have a friend, a lady dancer, who gave all her money away while she was manic, because she believed that she had to take care of everybody, like a Jesus. She writes the most beautiful poetry, whatever state she's in. I know a man whose father used to have to go after him to Vegas all the time. After he started taking the medicine, he had a job in my office, & supported a wife & 2 kids, but was very melancholy, always complaining. I know another young man, who had any number of problems with the police, until he finally gave in & started taking lithium. Today, he's well read on religion and spirituality, & one can have an intelligent conversation with him. But he's only holding down a very menial job. What are they learning? Who knows? How to live with a very difficult and trying illness? As for who's actually talking to God, I really don't believe anyone knows, especially if you don't believe that God is a person but a consciousness. People who hear voices are often deranged, but you mentioned Jeanne D'Arc, and I happen to believe that she wasn't deranged, but had a certain type of ESP. But that's only conjecture on my part. Then you talk about people who, as a group, commit awful acts, like a lynch mob. I think that's mob psychology. I remember reading about it somewhere in Leadbeater. Crowds can take on moods, and they're catching to people who happen to be nearby, or they can be, if you're not very aware of what is happen, and take care that you don't get caught up in a crowd which is doing things you don't really want to do yourself... like wanting to show the next guy that you can be just as tough and hard bitten as he is. There is also such a thing as charisma. Hitler had it. I know because my uncle, who was a Jew with a Lutheran wife once went to hear him. He came away regretting that he was Jewish and couldn't be a Nazi. Crazy! This was before the Holocaust had really started, and my uncle had enough sense to get the h--- out of Germany before they got him. About hiding the dark side ... the shadow, Jung calls it. I learned from Stephan Hoeller, talking about alchemy, that the shadow is also a creative component. That makes it seem a little less formidable. I also know that to really become a well rounded human being you must accept your shadow side. Everyone has one. I find accepting it most difficult, but I think just knowing that the shadow side needs to be accepted makes me feel better about it. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 05:59:12 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32d63659.33379075@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >Dear Tom, > >Then why don't you ask Willa Mae why the Canadian TS and the Danish TS >were excommunicated. I'll make a point of it. >You can get some more miasinformation to cover up. Was what she said about the Boston Lodge misinformation? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 01:24:18 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: The New Year Message-ID: <199701080624.BAA21783@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >Got me hanging on this one. No, I never heard of this, but there's a great >deal of astrological stuff like that out there (not necessarily the truth >either). >The data is so immense that I limit my study. Can anyone else here >address this? > >-AEB Oks. I originally read about it in that Purucker book. "Fund. of Esot. Phil." i thought maybe you'd know a little something about it. I hear you on the mass quantity of bs that goes under astrology. I dabbled in it a few years ago, but found that there so so much bs that I couldn't get anywhere with it. In other words, one book would totally contradict another, so I couldn't learn anything. I pretty much just gave up. Have you found that a specific author gave you some truthful information? Or perhaps a certain publishing company? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 22:26:09 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <199701080626.WAA06656@proxy1.ba.best.com> Bart Lidofsky: >Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be >changed at will. In general, however, the change has to be >useful in order for it to be widely accepted. The most >recent major change in the laws of mathematics was the >invention of imaginary numbers. That pesky "i". It had to be invented because of things like having to break down that square root of a negative to simplify the equation process. I kept on forgetting it in my equations because after you extract it from the square root, all it does is hang around. It's an integral part of the equation, and yet seem unimportant. I lost quite a few quiz points because of that. I must have left it in my pocket. I guess in that respect, the "i" is like God nowadays. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 01:32:14 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Near Death Experiences Message-ID: <199701080632.BAA22315@envirolink.org> I'm not sure how often this topic comes up on this list, but I haven't seen it on here in the four or five months that I've been on, so here goes. I have a few questions about the different theories of the people on this list as far as what takes place during the "death". I know quite a bit of scientific explanations as well as a few of my own hypothesis concerning the scientific and mystical aspects of the phenomena. I was just curious as to what other people thought of the situation and see if anyone was willing to get off of the "who's right and who's wrong" rollercoaster for a bit and talk about something that has nothing to do with sex or race. It seems like an excellent area for debate as far as being safe from "ego" arguments. Whatdya say? Anyone for a break on the bashing? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 06:41:56 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <32da4149.36179372@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 7 Jan 97, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >Can you explain what you mean by this. I don't understand it. >>Reality can be defined as that which free will cannot affect.> Free will is only relevant to what can be changed. Reality is that which does not change. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 06:49:25 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32db42fd.36615531@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be >changed at will. In general, however, the change has to be >useful in order for it to be widely accepted. The most >recent major change in the laws of mathematics was the >invention of imaginary numbers. The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless. Like the laws of morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 01:49:48 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <199701080649.BAA23318@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Tue, 7 Jan 97, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: > >>Can you explain what you mean by this. I don't understand it. > >>>Reality can be defined as that which free will cannot affect.> > >Free will is only relevant to what can be changed. Reality is that which >does not change. Reality is what can not be changed by will. However, reality does evolve, does it not? Therefore, does it not change? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 01:50:59 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <199701080650.BAA23392@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: > >Bart Lidofsky wrote: > >>Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be >>changed at will. In general, however, the change has to be >>useful in order for it to be widely accepted. The most >>recent major change in the laws of mathematics was the >>invention of imaginary numbers. > >The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless. Like the laws of >morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented. I agree Platonically. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 00:05:02 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless. Like the laws of > morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented. > If you can demonstrate this with something other than just an assertion of your belief, you will have refuted Godel's Theorem. While you may take comfort in the belief that the laws of mathematics are "eternal and changeless", no working mathematician has given serious credibility to that idea in close to half a century ... its seen in the field as a charming, if unsophisticated, superstition from the past. Myself, as well as several friends, would be most interested to see a formal proof of your statement ... as it would likely be worth a Nobel Prize. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:27:57 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <970108005607_2021735338@emout04.mail.aol.com> Alan, The Ayatollah is going to be very cross with you. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 08:09:24 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32eb5603.41455907@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, JRC wrote: >On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: >> >> The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless. Like the laws of >> morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented. >> >If you can demonstrate this with something other than just an assertion >of your belief, you will have refuted Godel's Theorem. While you may take >comfort in the belief that the laws of mathematics are "eternal and >changeless", no working mathematician has given serious credibility to >that idea in close to half a century ... its seen in the field as a >charming, if unsophisticated, superstition from the past. Myself, as >well as several friends, would be most interested to see a formal proof of >your statement ... as it would likely be worth a Nobel Prize. I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily decided that 2+2=4. But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of your friends. I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, also. When might 2+2 become 5? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:11:58 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > JRC wrote: > > >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*. > > I don't particularly care about the politics of the TS, and I have never > seen the slightest bit of suppression of ideas in the 3 years that I have > been involved. If anything, new members are encouraged too much to say > what they have to say. I found the above statement to be incredible when I > first heard it, but, just to prove how open-minded I can be, I thought I > would ask Willamay Pym about the Boston Lodge fiasco, to which I believe it > is referring. She said that she was a member of the national board while > it was going on, and she got the biggest kick tonight out of my repetition > of the above statement. She told me that there was a dispute over the > property owned by the Boston Lodge, that HQ feared that individuals would > end up keeping property that belonged to the scoiety, and she described the > idea that $500,000 was spent suing them, as well as the idea that HQ would > sue any of its lodges because they studied Alice Bailey, as "crazy." It's > a close one, but I think I will take Willamay's word for it over the word > of someone who thinks it would be "cool" if Alexis was still around. > So then, to be "open-minded" you questioned someone guaranteed to give the official party line ... and then apparently decide that because I like a person you've fought with, that is the foundation upon which to decide which person to believe. Gee ... that's pretty "rational" bucko. You want to delibrately goad and disparege people? Fine ... I'll play with you. You are sitting here on some high horse, talking almost continually down to people, attacking them for not responding to you "rationally", while offering little other than freshman logic and unsupported statements. You want to do an *OBJECTIVE* examination of the situation? No, I don't think so - it appears as though you simply wanted to take a quick shot at me ... as an *OBJECTIVE* examination would be to 1. Approach the subject *assuming you did not know the answer*. 2. To *investigate all points of view* - gathering data - conflicting though it might be - from *all* the relevent sources. 3. Form a couple of hypotheses for testing. 4. Create tests that would confirm or disprove one or more of them. 5. Come to a conclusion based on analysis - and assign a relative likelihood to the truth of the conclusion. You heard a statement from me - part of a post asserting that a small coterie of people that run TS Headquarters enaged in certain activities - so naturally you "objectively investigate" the charge by asking one of the people at Headquarters who was involved in the situation itself if it was true or not. Gee I just wonder *what* that person would say? Would you also have investigated Watergate by asking Nixon whether he did it? Maybe you should look at the archives of this list - there was an *extensive* discussion of the matter here ... with perspectives from all sides presented ... not just the HQ point of view, but also the points of view of a number of people personally involved on both sides of the battle. It is a *fact* that Wheaton sued. It is a *fact* that some moneys from the sale of the Boston Lodge are now in the possession of HQ - money that was *not* raised by Wheaton ... but by past and present members of the Boston Lodge. It is a *fact* that the Lodge is now much smaller ... and that a group of people that left ... who HQ claimed were threatening to "sieze the assets of the Lodge" just happened to be also Alice Bailey afficianados. And one of the members of the Lodge that was one of those that lost to Wheaton expressed just as much suprise that anyone was thinking of "taking over" the assets of the Lodge ... in fact the guy was absolutely *livid* that such charges were being made - there *was* a battle between different factions within the Lodge ... but *no one* was intending to personally "take over" any assets ... in fact it is not even possible to do so - the assets of non-profits, even if they are dissolved - cannot go to individuals ... at worst they would be distributed back to other non-profits. Did Willamay happen to mention *who* was going to "take over" the assets? Or exactly what "taking over" even *meant*? Or did you - in your obviously deep and extensive questioning - even bother to ask? The situation was quite complex ... but *HQ* instituted court proceedings ... and considerable moneys were spent on legal bills - that is, money that came from *Theosophists* who probably were stupid enough to believe their dues would be used to further the cause of Theosophy rather than to line the pockets of lawyers. Perhaps you would like to go even further and investigate the Wheaton books ... to actually *see* how much money was spent, and where the money Wheaton got is now ... but you will probably have little luck, as several different people on this list have attempted to get just such information and have been utterly ignored by HQ. Perhaps you might wonder why until you got on this list you had not even heard a word of the situation ... It is not just my opinion, but that of virtually everyone that tried to do a full investigation of the situation for themselves (including some people quite well disposed towards Wheaton) that not only did Wheaton supress any awareness of their actions to the membership at large, but has delibrately thwarted all attempts to investigate it. You want to make slimey comments about my validity because I like Alexis? Perhaps you've been reading Liesel's posts - a woman with the balance and experience of age that Willamay has ... that has been a strong supporter of John Algeo in the past ... and who (since this is apparently your standard for judging validity) had *terrible* fights with Alexis - and who is now ... as a long time Theosophist ... seeking information about the location of the funds Wheaton got from the Lodge - and hearing absolutely nothing. Now let *me* see, who should I believe? A dozen different people, both supporters and critics of HQ, who were deeply involved in either the day to day unfolding of the situation itself or in attempts to pursue in depth investigations of it ... or a man whose idea of investigation is to ask one person ... who was herself part of the Board that instituted the action in the first place ... and accept her word at face value as being the truth of the entire situation? Gee, that's a close one. On the bright side, your love of authority and willingness to come to a conclusion about a several year complex situation based on complete belief in a statement by one person, who could be depended upon to speak the party line, makes you a good candidate for TS leadership. You're exactly the sort that will probably be "invited" to offer your name for a board position a few years from now - and if some malcontent is running against you? Don't worry! A "speaking tour" will be conveniently arranged that has you (in a delightfully fortuitious coincidence) visit most main Lodges in your region within a few months of the election. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:13:49 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Alan, > > The Ayatollah is going to be very cross with you. > > Chuck the Heretic > Hell, Alan's probably hiding Rushdie in his basement. (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 10:24:48 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32e77219.48645479@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, JRC wrote: >On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > >> JRC wrote: >> >> >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*. >> I don't particularly care about the politics of the TS, and I have never >> seen the slightest bit of suppression of ideas in the 3 years that I have >> been involved. If anything, new members are encouraged too much to >>say what they have to say. I found the above statement to be incredible >>when I first heard it, but, just to prove how open-minded I can be, I >>thought I would ask Willamay Pym about the Boston Lodge fiasco, to >>which I believe it is referring. She said that she was a member of the >>national board while it was going on, and she got the biggest kick tonight >>out of my repetition of the above statement. She told me that there was a >>dispute over the property owned by the Boston Lodge, that HQ feared that >>individuals would end up keeping property that belonged to the society, >>and she described the idea that $500,000 was spent suing them, as well >>as the idea that HQ would sue any of its lodges because they studied >>Alice Bailey, as "crazy." It's a close one, but I think I will take Willamay's >>word for it over the word of someone who thinks it would be "cool" if Alexis >>was still around. >So then, to be "open-minded" you questioned someone guaranteed to give >the official party line ... I agree. Willamay would never put truth ahead of making herself look good. >and then apparently decide that because I like a >person you've fought with, that is the foundation upon which to decide >which person to believe. Gee ... that's pretty "rational" bucko. For the degree that I care about what happened with the Boston Lodge, it was reasonable. I believe Willamay is honest, and I have already seen how honest you are. It is illogical to conclude that your liking as untheosophical a character as Alexis is the "foundation" of my trusting Willamay more than I trust you. Does the concept "strawman" mean anything to you? >You want >to delibrately goad and disparege people? Fine ... I'll play with you. Now look who's complaining about being attacked, after equating any mention by me of being attacked with selfish self-pity. Does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you? >You >are sitting here on some high horse, talking almost continually down to >people, attacking them for not responding to you "rationally", while >offering little other than freshman logic and unsupported statements. If you are criticizing me for making assertions without necessarily showing the logic behind them, what do you think of this last sentence of yours? Would you call it "rational?" >You want to do an *OBJECTIVE* examination of the situation? No, I don't >think so - it appears as though you simply wanted to take a quick shot at >me ... A little while ago, you were implying that there is nothing wrong with "taking shots" at people. Could the difference now merely be who is the object of the "shot?" Once you have been on this list long enough, you will see such "shots" as serving the constructive purpose of clarifying your thought, and you will learn to appreciate your spiritual allies. Taking them personally only clouds your judgment. Is asking me a question, and then immediately answering it open-minded? >as an *OBJECTIVE* examination would be to > >1. Approach the subject *assuming you did not know the answer*. It is your prejudice that portrays me as assuming I already knew the answer. For all I know, Willamay could be a pathological liar. You are prejudicially assuming that any conclusion I come to is prejudiced. I call assuming that others have one's own faults "projection." >2. To *investigate all points of view* - gathering data - conflicting >though it might be - from *all* the relevent sources. >3. Form a couple of hypotheses for testing. >4. Create tests that would confirm or disprove one or more of them. >5. Come to a conclusion based on analysis - and assign a relative >likelihood to the truth of the conclusion. If one person told you that female praying mantids eat their mates after mating, and another person said they didn't, and it didn't make a significant difference to you, to what lengths would go to get data from "all" the relevant sources? Or, if you considered one source more reliable than the other, might you simply decide that your limited desire to know the truth about the mantids does not justify any further study, and, for what it's worth, you will accept, on faith, the conclusion of the one in whom you have the most faith? >You heard a statement from me - part of a post asserting that a small >coterie of people that run TS Headquarters enaged in certain activities - >so naturally you "objectively investigate" the charge by asking one of the >people at Headquarters who was involved in the situation itself if it was >true or not. Gee I just wonder *what* that person would say? Would you >also have investigated Watergate by asking Nixon whether he did it? If it mattered to me as little as what happened with the Boston Lodge matters to me, sure. >Maybe you should look at the archives of this list - there was an >*extensive* discussion of the matter here ... with perspectives from all >sides presented ... not just the HQ point of view, but also the points of >view of a number of people personally involved on both sides of the >battle. Maybe. I want to be open-minded to all possibilities. >It is a *fact* that the Lodge is now much smaller ... >and that a group of people that left ... who HQ claimed were threatening >to "sieze the assets of the Lodge" just happened to be also Alice Bailey >afficianados. Then, as you implied, they must have been sued _because_ they studied Alice Bailey. I stand corrected. >And one of the members of the Lodge that was one of those >that lost to Wheaton expressed just as much suprise that anyone was >thinking of "taking over" the assets of the Lodge ... in fact the guy was >absolutely *livid* that such charges were being made O. J. was "livid" that he was charged with murder. You seem to be "livid" that I consider you and Alexis to be hypocrites in going by the name "Theosophist." >The situation was quite >complex ... but *HQ* instituted court proceedings ... and considerable >moneys were spent on legal bills Willamay ridiculed the idea that half a million dollars were spent on legal fees. On that basis alone, without any further investigation (since that is how I believe all investigations should be done, anyway), I will give you two to one odds, on any amount you want to bet up to $10,000, that the amount spent on legal fees was less than, oh, say, $300,000. >You want to make slimey comments about my validity because I like Alexis? That's the only reason, yes. >Perhaps you've been reading Liesel's posts - a woman with the balance and >experience of age that Willamay has ... that has been a strong supporter >of John Algeo in the past ... and who (since this is apparently your >standard for judging validity) had *terrible* fights with Alexis I bet she started them, too. Alexis is quite the peacemaker. >Now let *me* see, who should I believe? A dozen different people, >both supporters and critics of HQ, who were deeply involved in either the >day to day unfolding of the situation itself or in attempts to pursue in >depth investigations of it ... or a man whose idea of investigation is to >ask one person ... who was herself part of the Board that instituted the >action in the first place ... and accept her word at face value as being >the truth of the entire situation? Gee, that's a close one. Your dishonesty in willing to blatantly mischaracterize what people say is glaring through, yet again. I never said that I accepted her word at face value as being the truth of the "entire" situation. Rather than claiming to have "investigated" it, I have explicitly said that I hardly care about it. You are adding to my relative confidence in her, since I have known her much longer than I have you, and she has never gone this far out of her way to lie about what I said. >On the bright >side, your love of authority and willingness to come to a conclusion about >a several year complex situation based on complete belief in a statement >by one person, who could be depended upon to speak the party line, makes >you a good candidate for TS leadership. You're exactly the sort that will >probably be "invited" to offer your name for a board position a few years >from now - and if some malcontent is running against you? Don't worry! A >"speaking tour" will be conveniently arranged that has you (in a >delightfully fortuitious coincidence) visit most main Lodges in your >region within a few months of the election. Sometimes the end justifies the means. Are you open-minded to that possibility? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 11:47:24 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: limits of free will Message-ID: <3301891e.54539042@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 7 Jan 97, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >>Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws. Their beliefs >>about them are unique mixtures of truth and falsehood, but the extent to >>which a belief is true or false depends on the objectively-existing laws >>themselves, not on the subject who has the belief. >Na, Tom, that's not the way I see it, sorry. I think philosophy, logic and >math are built on some basic assumptions that human beings made to start >with. We all need to live by a belief system, but we don't all base our >belief systems on the same basic philosophies. You are referring to human perception of truth and I am referring to truth. Everyone's basic philosophy is a unique attempt at conforming with the true one. >>Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics. >>We may use them, but they exist independently of us. They cannot be >>changed. >Laws that have changed recently: A quark can be particles or waves; time, >space and matter are interrelated; in view of the pictures sent back by the >Hubbel telescope the universe looks quite different now than it did before; >the origin of the universe was the big bang; when we see the light of a >distant star, we see light emitted perhaps thousands of years ago. Again, these are all examples of changes in human perception. The principles behind the reality that they are perceiving never changes. >Something exists independently of us, but since we can't perceive the >whole thing, we don't really know what it's like, we can only tell what it >seems like to us. To some extent, it must be a matter of faith. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 05:54:19 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Near Death Experiences Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970108115419.00690530@mail.eden.com> At 01:33 AM 1/8/97 -0500, you wrote: >I'm not sure how often this topic comes up on this list, but I haven't seen it >on here in the four or five months that I've been on, so here goes. I have a >few questions about the different theories of the people on this list as far >as what takes place during the "death". I know quite a bit of scientific >explanations as well as a few of my own hypothesis concerning the scientific >and mystical aspects of the phenomena. I was just curious as to what other >people thought of the situation and see if anyone was willing to get off of >the "who's right and who's wrong" rollercoaster for a bit and talk about >something that has nothing to do with sex or race. It seems like an excellent >area for debate as far as being safe from "ego" arguments. Whatdya say? >Anyone for a break on the bashing? >--- >The Triaist It happened several decades ago to me. I went to see a movie and was not feeling good. During a break when I was in rest room I passed out. I thought I am dead, and not at all fearful or apprehensive after being to many TS meetings where Life after Death was discussed. Was waiting to see what happens next. Lo and behold, to all my great surprise I was back. May be what ever that decides whether one goes forward to death or not, seems to have decided that I am better of back on earth. May be it was my destiny that I should be here today and writing this. That's all. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 05:57:35 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Advice to Alan Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970108115735.006959d4@mail.eden.com> At 01:24 AM 1/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >TAKE THERA-FLU. Max-Str. Night time. Does wonders. Just make sure you >don't have to do anything for a couple of days:) >--- >The Triaist good advise. I did not do nothing for a couple of days and slept day and night. Of course I talked to my doctor and he told me that only if I have cough then may be I had to take some antibiotics. fortunately I did not have any cough. got away with tylenol and advil. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:13:21 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: justice and love Message-ID: <33068f45.56113357@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 7 Jan 97, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >>Jesus said, "you have heard that it was said by them of old, 'an eye for an >>eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'love your enemies.'" >>Did he mean to do away with justice and replace it with love, or might he >>have meant to balance the two? Shouldn't love for others be balanced >>with standing up for one's own rights, or is it never right to be selfish in >>that way? If love should rule over justice, does that mean that we should >>let others take advantage of us and trust that justice is inevitable? >>Isn't revenge based on the quest for justice, and yet isn't it also the >>antithesis of love? Does forgiveness mean being a doormat?> >You come up with the darndest ideas, Tom. Thank you! >I would give as an example that a teenager might get into >trouble with the law out of sheer boredom, not having anything to do, not >having family which gives a hoot. I would put a kid like that in a situation >which would try to make up for the lacks in his life. I'd do it behind bars, >if that's what the situatiion called for, but I'd give him something else to >think about, like a ged, or a trade with which he could make a living, or >help his imagination so he'll do more constructive things with his leisure >time. HPB said that 85% of life is dictated to us, from which I infer that she did not consider individual responsibility to be the whole story of a human life. The influences on youth that shape their lives was probably uppermost in her mind at the time. >I think it's perfectly ok to be selfish in that you need to stand up for >your own rights. I've found that usually what's best for one party, is also >good for the other. like if you're dealing with a bully, you put your foot >down. I don't believe in someone being totally unselfish. It's ok to be the >one to give in at times, but being a doormat isn't healthy, I don't think. >Sometimes you have to inist on having things your way. Balance is the ideal. Kant's idea of putting duty first may be the best guide, since it includes both self-interest and the interests of others. >As for forgiveness meaning that you'll be a doormat, I like to go by Martin >Luther King's non-violent dictum "Hate the deed, but love the doer". It amazes me that some people think they have to choose between evaluation and tolerance. People take the words of Jesus saying not to judge as meaning that the behavior of others should not be evaluated. Others consider intolerance to be a virtue on the grounds that good should be valued over evil. I see no reason why both are not possible. Distinctions should be made in evaluating good and evil, but conditional compassion is non-existent compassion. >One of >my teachers, Serge King, taught us that if you're unforgiving, the >resentment festers inside you , and keeps you from feeling good. With that >in mind, I try my darndest to forgive. In my Christian days, I went to the same seminar once or twice a year. One thing the teacher said was that bitterness, by focusing so much on a certain behavior, causes the one who is bitter to conform to that behavior. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:23:27 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <3309918e.56698583@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 7 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >> Morality exists independently of human perception. Human beings have >> no choice about the moral value of any alternative, but only which >> alternative to choose. > Each alternative touches many moral axioms. How they are >weighted depends on the individual. Not even the Mahatmas could agree on >the moral rectitude of many actions; do you know something they didn't? I taught them everything they know. >> Although they can choose to be dishonest about their beliefs, human >> beings have no choice about what those beliefs are. > Please explain this; on the surface, it is trivial to disprove. How to act on one's beliefs is subject to free will, but beliefs are deterministic. I believe that World War 2 ended in 1945. It is not possible for me to choose to believe it ended last year. >> Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws. > Perhaps you are changing the English language to suit yourself? >BY DEFINITION, human beings have choices about philosophical laws, as >philosophical laws exist only in the human mind (once they can be proven >to exist outside the human mind, they become SCIENTIFIC laws). All human beings have a unique perception of philosophical laws, but the laws themselves exist independently of human perception. Otherwise, truth would be entirely subjectivistic, and anyone's truth would be as good as anyone else's, with no standard to which to compare the value of each perception. >> Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics. >> We may use them, but they exist independently of us. They cannot be >> changed. > Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be changed at >will. Can you decide that 2+2=5? Can you decide that if all oranges are fruits, and if X is a fruit, then X must be an orange? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 12:38:10 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <331194ce.57530642@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Reality is what can not be changed by will. However, reality does evolve, >does it not? Therefore, does it not change? Forms constantly change, but are illusory. The laws governing evolution are real, in that they do not change, but what evolves is not real. It depends on how "reality" is defined. Forms are commonly called "reality," but, since they constantly change, their identity having no duration, I would not include them in my definition of "reality." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 07:38:12 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <32D39534.44F8@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > I guess that once one is able to start logically and objectively > think about being in any nation or any situation, I guess one may develop a > set of values/morals that one is comfortable with. Such a set of > values/morals is likely to help us in our dealings with everyone we come > into contact, by what ever medium. It is very hard to be an original thinker > when we are faced with enormous pressures brought on us by the social, > religious, governmental, "morals", which in the eyes of an original thinker > could be *immoral*. Essentially, everybody has a set of moral axioms. Some are pretty much universal (such as "it is wrong to kill human beings"). However, in most situations, there are several moral axioms that come into play, and there is almost always some conflict. Then one must calculate the relative importance of these axioms, how heavily they weigh on the situation, and come to a decision. It is not so much moral relativism as it is moral fuzzy logic (using "fuzzy logic" in the sense of the mathematical system called "fuzzy logic", not the popular sense of questionable logic). The Mahatmas, in my opinion, pointed their fingers in the right direction, when they expressed the importance of intent. If one's actions are well-thought out and intended to make the world a better place in which to live, then they can be said to be moral. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 07:41:56 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32D39614.7789@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > >Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be > >changed at will. In general, however, the change has to be > >useful in order for it to be widely accepted. The most > >recent major change in the laws of mathematics was the > >invention of imaginary numbers. > > The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless. Like the laws of > morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented. Poetic, but entirely false. Mathematics is a system devised for describing things. The only thing constant about it is that people around the world have come up with similar enough systems that they can all agree on the results. The reason of the purity of mathematics is that it is entirely symbolic; it represents reality, but it is not part of it. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 07:44:35 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32D396B3.1003@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily > decided that 2+2=4. But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of > your friends. I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, > also. When might 2+2 become 5? Without the use of mathematics (i.e. without circular reasoning), please explain the meaning of 2 + 2 = 4. Mathematics is meaningless without mathematics; it is a self-contained, self-referential system. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 05:53:51 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Ring-Pass-Not Message-ID: <32D3A6E8.3E88@withoutwalls.com> Doss wrote: >>I believe that the ring-pass-not for free will is determined by our bodies, >including the invisible ones. A human being has free will as long as his/her >>bodies, heredity, habits, will power will let him/her. (There may be other> >factors tending to inhibit. Those are the ones I can think of just now.) Liesel then wrote: >This is one of the best posts I have seen on this subject. It makes >sense. Any limits put on us - whatever level of plane, physical, >superphysical, I agree that it is not *externally* imposed. It is built in >due to physical or non physical bodies or material we are made of. All the >literature I have seen have always somehow indicated the ring-pass-not is >something externally imposed. I remember "Ring-Pass-Nots" being spoken of as the limits of the auric egg of whatever entity is being considered. I read it in reference to a Solar Logos but the same was said to apply to all. It is the point which, (for the time being) you cannot go beyond. It does makes sense in a way, because it's the functional limit of your identity. "You" as a conscious identity cannot function as "yourself", nor "know yourself as yourself" beyond it's boundary. It defines "you", whatever the level, because it is the vehicle or set of vehicles that you are actually able to be conscious in. You cannot go beyond it and retain your present identity, ("identity" here being a function of the capabilities of the vehicle.) Until we graduate from the scheme in question and learn to become conscious in the vehicles that are or will be prepared in the next one, it acts as the operative limit. A "Ring-Pass-Not" is fixed for "us" (at least for the duration), as the attainable upper limit of the Earth Scheme hierarchy, but there are also lesser "Ring-Pass-Nots" that we deal with now as we strive to rise and become conscious in our higher vehicles. When we "graduate" from Globe D of the earth chain, It's said that we will fully live and be functionally conscious in our causal bodies. That is supposedly one of the goals for this globe-round. Until we sucessfully accomplish that, the lower mental body is a kind of lesser "Ring-Pass-Not". It seems the Logos for our Scheme has set the natural bar for us. And on and on and on ... (or so I've heard.) 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: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 07:52:43 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Advice to Alan Message-ID: <199701081357.IAA14774@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > TAKE THERA-FLU. Max-Str. Night time. Does wonders. Just make sure you > don't have to do anything for a couple of days:) > --- Is that available in the UK? -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 07:56:29 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Of mice and poverty Message-ID: <199701081357.IAA14799@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Alan, > You have a massive dose of sympathy and two machines sending healing energy. > Point some of that towards Chicago. I have the flu that all my friends had at Christmas. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 07:54:58 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Justice and Love (Re-submission) Message-ID: <199701081357.IAA14790@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: kymsmith@micron.net > Tom wrote: > >"A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." > > "A liberal is a conservative who has been arrested." > A liberal is a conservative who has lost all his money and his house in the suburbs. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 09:29:26 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <199701081429.JAA21189@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Wed, 8 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: > >>Reality is what can not be changed by will. However, reality does evolve, >>does it not? Therefore, does it not change? > >Forms constantly change, but are illusory. The laws governing evolution >are real, in that they do not change, but what evolves is not real. It >depends on how "reality" is defined. Forms are commonly called "reality," >but, since they constantly change, their identity having no duration, I >would not include them in my definition of "reality." Ah. Well, if you're speaking of reality in that sense, then it is my understanding that the laws themselves are illusory as well. For the laws are not actually laws, but monadic force. Man has simply named them "laws" because he can not understand the monadic principles of reality. I suppose that as long as you are defining "law" as a force which cannot be changed or redefined except by a force higher or "stronger" than itself, then it could probably be generally excepted. For instance, if you believe in the manvantara/pralaya system, then the "wonderous being" actually does have the power, but perhaps not the will, to release a specific monad from its duties and/or annihilate it. So I suppose that one could say that we, as average, everyday human beings, cannot change the "laws" of reality simply by the will to do so. However... You say that free will has nothing to do with evolution. You say that the monadic forces of "reality" (or laws of reality, for I don't know if you accept monadic doctrine or not) are the only forces which govern it. But don't we, as individual monads ourselves, have the power to control our own evolution? For instance, if by using my free will to tell you and convince you that the only way you could evolve to a "higher sphere" was to get in touch with your higher self and forget the personal, selfish ego (the lower manasic principles and beast principles), and you accomplished doing so, and evolved, wouldn't that be me and you together controlling our own evolutions? Of course, I can agree with you that we do not govern the principles which "allow" us to evolve, however we do govern the choice to actually eveolve. That is what free will is all about. I have the free will to throw a ball through a window, but I do not govern the forces that make the window break or make the ball fly through the air. If you want to look at it on a massive scale, taking my previous example (I say massive scale on the basis of evolution being defined as a race or family of beings who have changed through a series of adaptations, which is a bad definition of "evolution" considering I am focusing more on spiritual and psychological evolution than physical evolution) If, while showing you the "spiritual path to enlightenment", I also told and convinced twenty other people of the same, and those twenty convinced twenty others and so on, eventually A LOT of people would be on a similar path of evolution. And this evolution was *chosen* by them. I'll stop for now, for I think I may have already gotten off of the beaten path. Toodles. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 10:02:30 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <199701081502.KAA24250@envirolink.org> Bart Lidofsky writes: >Tom Robertson wrote: >> I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily >> decided that 2+2=4. But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of >> your friends. I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, >> also. When might 2+2 become 5? > > Without the use of mathematics (i.e. without circular reasoning), >please explain the meaning of 2 + 2 = 4. Mathematics is meaningless >without mathematics; it is a self-contained, self-referential system. > > Bart Lidofsky There is a phsics equation in existence, I have seen it and tested it, which allows 1 + 1 to equal 1. I'm going to talk to a physics instructor in the area soon and see if I can get it for you. As far as explaining 2 + 2 = 4 without using mathematics ...well I'll take a crack at it. First of all, 2 and 4 are merely symbols used to define a certain number. And "number" is a symbol used to define and to help the psyche better understand quantity. 2 represents a certain quantity, however, that specific quantity is not always equal, whether it is represnted by the two or not. Two plus two equals four means absolutely nothing by itself. All numbers are not nouns, even though they may be thought of in that way mathematically. They are in actuality adjectives which qualify, perhaps a better word would even be quantify, a noun. For instance, mathematically, 2 + 2 = 4 seems logical. However, that is only illusionary logic because when I say two plus two equals four, I could be talking about an entirely different quantity than when you say it. I can tell you right now that I figured out the radius of the cosmos and can prove it mathematically. For info, it's 2. 2 what? I'm sure you can figure out how i did it. Anyhow back to the point. Like I said, numbers are qualifiers of nouns, not nouns. In my hand I have an apple. In my other hand I just happen to have another apple. These two apples look nothing alike. One is twice as big as the other and one has green skin and one has red. Nevertheless, I choose to call them apples. Notice I said two just now. I could have said three if I had wanted to, it really doesn't matter. But in order for my to call it three I have to change my whole concept of three. Three would no longer be able to represent what I have let it represent most of the years of my life. So, to avoid confusion and rediculous nonsense, I chose to represent the apples as a quantity by a symbol called two. Oh my GOSH! You'll never believe this, but each apple just self-replicated right before my eyes! Please excuse me for a second while I pick the clones up off of the floor... Ok. Because my apples just cloned themselves, I have realized that I now have increased the quantity of apples by exactly the amount of apples I had before. Now, logically, I can name the newly replicated apples' quantity with the same symbol that I named their parents. I shall represent the new quantity with the number 2. OKAY! Here goes. I just lined up the two quantities of apples on the table in front of me and I have decided to take these two quantities and make them one quantity. To do this, I need to name the new quantity. Once again, to avoid confusion, I will name the new quantity with a different symbol than the one I used to represent the smaller quantities. I'll call it four. Four sounds good. Now that I have defined my quantities, I can come to a reasonble conclusion that two apples plus two apples equals four apples. However, like all things, this is only a relative deduction, for you can symbolize your quantities in any way you want to. In answer to Tom's question: by using your free will to decide that the symbol four should be replaced by the symbol five, 2 + 2 can equal 5. Oh yeah, and if you can convince the masses to do the same, a different method of learning may evolve. Who knows? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 10:07:00 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Advice to Alan Message-ID: <199701081507.KAA24608@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >---------- >> From: John Straughn >> >> TAKE THERA-FLU. Max-Str. Night time. Does wonders. Just make sure you > >> don't have to do anything for a couple of days:) >> --- >Is that available in the UK? > >-Ann E. Bermingham I have absolutely NO idea. However, as your personal secretary in the future when you become as popular as Anne Rice, I'll be sure to retrieve that information as fast as I can. I hope to have the results in by mid-day tomorrow. :) (I am SUCH a jerk) mwahahahahaha --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 10:17:52 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Near Death Experiences Message-ID: <199701081517.KAA25596@envirolink.org> M K Ramadoss writes: >It happened several decades ago to me. I went to see a movie and was not >feeling good. During a break when I was in rest room I passed out. I thought >I am dead, and not at all fearful or apprehensive after being to many TS >meetings where Life after Death was discussed. Was waiting to see what >happens next. Lo and behold, to all my great surprise I was back. May be >what ever that decides whether one goes forward to death or not, seems to >have decided that I am better of back on earth. May be it was my destiny >that I should be here today and writing this. That's all. > > >MKR Do you remember anything that occurred while you were "passed out"? The reason that I ask is because I have a friend who has, on occasion had the same thing occur and at one point he thought that he did, in fact, die. However, he had been passed out for several hours and the only thing he remembered was thinking that he had died. Thinking that one has died does not always represent actual death, however, I suppose that if one truly believed he were dead, he or she might have the ability to kill themselves if the belief were strong enough. But that's not what I'm really getting at, I don't think. The type of NDE's I am referring to are the ones where people believe that they have "seen and spoken to God". some after a tunnel, some not. I was wondering if anyone has some speculation on what the image of the tunnel actually is, whether it be nomenal or phenomenal, or simply an overactive imagination. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:09:05 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The New Year Message-ID: <199701081519.KAA08913@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > Oks. I originally read about it in that Purucker book. "Fund. of Esot. Phil." > i thought maybe you'd know a little something about it. Never read a Purucker book. In fact, I've never even seen one. >I hear you on the > mass quantity of bs that goes under astrology. I dabbled in it a few years > ago, but found that there so so much bs that I couldn't get anywhere with it. > In other words, one book would totally contradict another, so I couldn't > learn anything. I pretty much just gave up. Have you found that a specific > author gave you some truthful information? Or perhaps a certain publishing > company? It's a shame that your frustration led you to give up on it. But I know what you mean - asteroids, past life astrology, vedic, etc. When I was involved with Kriya Yoga, the head swami and many of his disciples were astrologers. I seemed to learn by osmosis and the astrology had an Eastern slant. I started with natal charts, transits and progressions, then slowly moved into other areas. Once you get the basic meaning of the chart symbols, it seems easy. For transits, I use Sakoian and Acker's "Predictive Astrology" for the outer event possibility and "Planets in Transit" by Robert Hand for the inner/ psychological interpretations. For natal charts, "The Astrologer's Handbook" by Sakoian and Acker and "The Wisdom and Way of Astrology" by Goswami Kriyananda. Alan Oken's books are good, too, but his esoteric astrology is based on Alice Bailey, if you're interested in that. Also, "Planets in Solar Returns" by Mary Shea. I've heard that there's a movement going on to try to move astrology away from the predition of events to psychological meaning. This is an effort to give astrology more credibility in the USA. I find both approaches useful. I began doing charts and transits because a friend of mine, who was supposed to do my yearly transits, didn't get them done on time and I gave her the $50 fee anyway. After that, I taught myself to do them. I have Halloran's Astroldeluxe for Windows software. Hope this answers your question. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 09:16:39 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: subjective reality Message-ID: <199701081519.KAA08930@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: liesel f. deutsch > > About hiding the dark side ... the shadow, Jung calls it. I learned from > Stephan Hoeller, talking about alchemy, that the shadow is also a creative > component. That makes it seem a little less formidable. I also know that to > really become a well rounded human being you must accept your shadow side. > Everyone has one. I find accepting it most difficult, but I think just > knowing that the shadow side needs to be accepted makes me feel better about it. > There is a "shadow" character in the novel I'm writing. In the beginning I found it hard to imitate his consciousness, but it was easier with practice and I actually fell in love with the character. Acting out of this mask, I believe, has helped me to accept my own shadow. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 10:23:35 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Hey ladies, guess what!? Message-ID: <199701081523.KAA26564@envirolink.org> I got a job as a bank teller yesterday. What dya know? Maybe being a man isn't so bad after all? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 16:18:44 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <32d3c892.73324@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 7 Jan 97 01:24:30 +0000, you wrote: >On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: >> "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." > >"A conservative is someone who worships a dead liberal." > -JRC > A Theosophist is someone who believes that there is no religion higher than truth. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 16:20:26 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Hey ladies, guess what!? Message-ID: <32d4c91b.209978@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >I got a job as a bank teller yesterday. What dya know? Maybe being a man >isn't so bad after all? Someday there will be equality. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 12:13:23 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <970108114324_578240756@emout19.mail.aol.com> Well, if he's in Cornwall, he's probably gone into the hen rescuing business :) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 09:26:49 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <199701081727.JAA58146@scv3.apple.com> >I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, also. Try using base 3. The argument about whether mathematics is invented or discovered continues to wear on in philosophgical circles. Both sides here are presenting oversimplified views of the issues. Formalism and Idealism are not the same thing and Godel's Theorem is not a disproof of Idealism. At the same time, we must note that the ideas held by mathematicians about what the laws of mathematics are have changed over time and have changed enormously in the last two centuries, so an argument for timelessness would be hard to sustain. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:39:29 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > >> > >> The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless. Like the laws of > >> morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented. > >> > >If you can demonstrate this with something other than just an assertion > >of your belief, you will have refuted Godel's Theorem. While you may take > >comfort in the belief that the laws of mathematics are "eternal and > >changeless", no working mathematician has given serious credibility to > >that idea in close to half a century ... its seen in the field as a > >charming, if unsophisticated, superstition from the past. Myself, as > >well as several friends, would be most interested to see a formal proof of > >your statement ... as it would likely be worth a Nobel Prize. > > I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily > decided that 2+2=4. But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of > your friends. I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, > also. When might 2+2 become 5? > I didn't tell my friends - the ones I have in mind are mathematicians whom I consult when I need advice about the nuances of econometrics ... and whom I 've had discussions with concerning Godel's thought. The notion of "formal proof" that you quote as though it is suspect in some way is a concept from mathematics - it has very definite meaning. Godel's formal proof is several dozen pages of brilliant and tightly argued mathematical logic. If your statement, which is a virtually direct refutation of his argument, is to be accepted as true, it *would* win you a Nobel Prize, but you'll have to actually construct one of those "rational arguments" you are so famous for ... and if you can do so, I will gladly show my friends the argument, and if the argument was actually something containing substance, they would gladly submit your name to the Nobel Committee. However, the delightful and transparent attempt to detract attention from the idiocy of your first statement by demanding proof that 2+2 might not equal four is hardly an argument. You made a definative statement about the nature of mathematical laws. This is a claim that has been extensively discussed in the field, and is widely agreed to have been fully resolved earlier in the century. I asked for *proof* of the rationality of that statement ... the step by step logic you use to not just present the idea as an opinion, but as a fact. As I *have* read Godel's proof, I would be most interested to compare your chain of reasoning to his. The question is not whether 2+2=4 ... it is whether Godel's proof, considered in the field to be one of the most brilliant pieces of mathematics in the history of the field, and one that in the rarefied circles of pure mathematics is considered an event equal in stature to the creation of the calculus, is *wrong*. You (clearly not even realizing it), are claiming that it is. And it is this kind of thing I meant when in another post I said you used "freshman logic". Your statement about the nature of mathematical laws is nothing but your opinion, yet it is framed as though it is a "rational fact". Even further, it has been *proved* wrong by a man using logical and mathematical reasoning at a level probably beyond your ability to even begin to grasp, let alone refute. You use, once again, the tactic you often do, which is that when someone actually challenges one of your statements, and demands the "rational argument" you so often demand others use, you do not respond by doing so, but instead try to introduce some different question. It won't work. You made a statement. According to the field of mathematics, persuaded by a magnificent and elegant piece of work by Godel, your statement is just simply *wrong*. And judging by the level of your response, it seems likely you don't have the intellectual capacity to even understand why ... however, if you'd care to read Godel's proof, and offer your criticism of even a single statement, a considerable number of people would be quite interested in seeing you do so. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 13:04:21 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Belated responses Message-ID: <199701081804.NAA24591@leo.vsla.edu> Due to some karmic law, the minute I left the list there were a couple dozen posts with my name in them. Back from Florida vacation, and temporarily prevented from progressing on literary matters due to hardware problems, I resubscribed and got the archived posts from the last week of the year. Thanks to everyone for being so interested in the issues raised by TS reactions to my work. At the risk of confirming JHE's judgment that I only post about that topic, I have a few comments. To Jerry Schueler-- I wish I'd noticed the name similarity Alexis discovered regarding the Maharaja of Benares. (That is, "Maurya" was part of his name which suggests some possible connection to Master M.) Haven't gone any deeper into it, but hope to read whatever Alexis has come up with. Generally, I think there's been a lot of confusion about the issue of composite identities. *No one* will ever be found who meets in *every* detail HPB's descriptions of M. and K.H. (prove me wrong if you can!) but *parts* of those descriptions correspond quite exactly to various people she can be shown or plausibly hypothesized to have known, learned from, worked with. So it's not a matter of Benares *rather* than Kashmir being M., but rather Benares *in addition to* Kashmir, Mazzini and who knows how many others *contributing* to HPB's portrayal of him. Since this appears to have been done with the approval of the people involved, it's not morally the same as if she were doing it for selfish reasons rather than to protect her sponsors. To Tom Robertson-- historically, the term theosophist has been used almost entirely by Christians, so I don't see how you can use them as mutually exclusive categories. Personally, I consider myself a Christian theosophist, and HPB welcomed such as members despite her own preference for Eastern religions. As for the wisdom of TPH rejecting my work, that is a much deeper and more confusing issue than you seem to recognize. They took an entire year to decide to reject it, but *never* gave me an *iota* of feedback on the research or the literary quality. Seven out of eight Theosophical reviewers were favorable (at various levels of strength) so it is quite wrong to depict the book as having been widely rejected by the Theosophical membership. It was rejected intensely and emphatically, but only by a small number of self-appointed thought police out to "protect Theosophists from being misled." I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work. This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie to help Dr. Lane upload it onto his website. That rigid belief system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism. More later, gotta run. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 10:31:26 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: mathematical philosophy Message-ID: <199701081832.KAA61544@scv3.apple.com> >You made a definative statement about the nature of mathematical laws. >This is a claim that has been extensively discussed in the field, and is >widely agreed to have been fully resolved earlier in the century. I'm sorry, but I have to differ. The subject is by no means considered resolved. To the extent that there is a dominant philosopher in the area, it would have to be the rather cranky but well-regarded Karl Popper, who insisted in no equivocal terms that mathematical laws pre-exist their discovery (while at the same time indulging in some self-contradictory screeds attacking a straw man version of Platonic idealism). If your mathematician friends are telling you that this issue was settled by Godel's Theorem, they are not accurately respresenting the state of mathematical philosophy. I should mention, les I be accused of bias, that I consider mathematical laws to be psychological phenomena and not physical realities. I just can't go along with a statement that the world has come to share my position. It hasn't. Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 11:08:51 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: subjective reality Message-ID: <199701081908.LAA11696@proxy2.ba.best.com> Dear Liesel, Thank you for your answering some of my questions. I've always wondered about what the reality of anything is. To say that it is all maya in a dismissive tone, is to deny that all of our reality is an important part of Reality. Like the shadows, we must accept our reality in order to deal with it. For example, those who eat meat should see the cow being killed in front of them. It's easy to eat something sanitized in your meat deli, but one should also realize where it's coming from. Abstractly, one realize that it came from a cow. However, one should see that it takes the death and the bleeding of a cow for that steak to sit in one's refrigerator. I'm not condemning meat eating. Humans are carnivores, that's a fact. I'm just saying we should see what we are eating. More in the past than in the present, we have things like never mentioning any bathroom terms, always being polite, and sanitizing everything for our poor stomach to bear. All those things are good for civilized society. Although, the negative side is that it makes one unaware that there are people who have no choice but to live in the unsanitized side of life. A woman I knew had to change the channel everytime an ad showing emaciated children with bloated stomach appears on the T.V. Another woman thinks that all people who have ever smoked should be denied insurance benefits. And of course, we often hear from people like Jesse Helms that people with AIDS should have low priority because it was the result of their immoral acts. The first woman should spend a week helping feed emaciated bloated children. The second woman should spend a week tending to the lung cancer patient, watching them in pain. Jesse Helms should do likewise. I used to fear people who act crazy, until I met my friend who had the brain chemical imbalance. My fear turned into compassion. P.S. I like reading about how you've went through your life and that everything is alright now. I think younger people spend most of their time worrying. We worry about how to get our career established. We worry how we are going to fill up the rest of our life. Will we be successful? What kind of person do we want to be? Will we ever have a family? Do we want a family? Sometimes I think it would be a relief to look back one day and say, "Hey, I went through my life and I'm okay." I find that the older generation, instead of being a patient guiding force for the younger generation, usually distance themselves from the younger generation. Instead of accepting that it is okay for the younger generation to be who they are, the older generation usually does a comparison test. The younger generation is often made to feel inadequate against the older who have been through it all, survived, and walked up the snowy hills in bare feet both ways. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 11:17:21 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 803 Message-ID: <32D3F2C1.71B@TIW.COM> theos-l@vnet.net wrote: > > Date: Wed Jan 8 10:02:30 1997 > From: John Straughn > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will > Message-ID: <199701081502.KAA24250@envirolink.org> > > Bart Lidofsky writes: > >Tom Robertson wrote: > >> I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily > >> decided that 2+2=4. But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of > >> your friends. I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, > >> also. When might 2+2 become 5? > > > > Without the use of mathematics (i.e. without circular reasoning), > >please explain the meaning of 2 + 2 = 4. Mathematics is meaningless > >without mathematics; it is a self-contained, self-referential system. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > There is a phsics equation in existence, I have seen it and tested it, which > allows 1 + 1 to equal 1. I'm going to talk to a physics instructor in the > area soon and see if I can get it for you. As far as explaining 2 + 2 = 4 > without using mathematics ...well I'll take a crack at it. First of all, 2 > and 4 are merely symbols used to define a certain number. And "number" is a > symbol used to define and to help the psyche better understand quantity. 2 > represents a certain quantity, however, that specific quantity is not always > equal, whether it is represnted by the two or not. Two plus two equals four > means absolutely nothing by itself. All numbers are not nouns, even though > they may be thought of in that way mathematically. They are in actuality > adjectives which qualify, perhaps a better word would even be quantify, a > noun. > > For instance, mathematically, 2 + 2 = 4 seems logical. However, that is only > illusionary logic because when I say two plus two equals four, I could be > talking about an entirely different quantity than when you say it. I can tell > you right now that I figured out the radius of the cosmos and can prove it > mathematically. For info, it's 2. 2 what? I'm sure you can figure out how i > did it. Anyhow back to the point. > > Like I said, numbers are qualifiers of nouns, not nouns. In my hand I have an > apple. In my other hand I just happen to have another apple. These two > apples look nothing alike. One is twice as big as the other and one has green > skin and one has red. Nevertheless, I choose to call them apples. Notice I > said two just now. I could have said three if I had wanted to, it really > doesn't matter. But in order for my to call it three I have to change my > whole concept of three. Three would no longer be able to represent what I > have let it represent most of the years of my life. So, to avoid confusion > and rediculous nonsense, I chose to represent the apples as a quantity by a > symbol called two. > > Oh my GOSH! You'll never believe this, but each apple just self-replicated > right before my eyes! Please excuse me for a second while I pick the clones > up off of the floor... > > Ok. Because my apples just cloned themselves, I have realized that I now have > increased the quantity of apples by exactly the amount of apples I had before. > Now, logically, I can name the newly replicated apples' quantity with the > same symbol that I named their parents. I shall represent the new quantity > with the number 2. > > OKAY! Here goes. I just lined up the two quantities of apples on the table > in front of me and I have decided to take these two quantities and make them > one quantity. To do this, I need to name the new quantity. Once again, to > avoid confusion, I will name the new quantity with a different symbol than the > one I used to represent the smaller quantities. I'll call it four. Four > sounds good. Now that I have defined my quantities, I can come to a reasonble > conclusion that two apples plus two apples equals four apples. However, like > all things, this is only a relative deduction, for you can symbolize your > quantities in any way you want to. > > In answer to Tom's question: > by using your free will to decide that the symbol four should be replaced by > the symbol five, 2 + 2 can equal 5. > > Oh yeah, and if you can convince the masses to do the same, a different method > of learning may evolve. Who knows? > --- > The Triaist > > ------------------------------ Bertrand Russell defined Pure Mathematics as the class of all statements of the form "If p then q". The question of when is 2+2=5 is not so much a propos as the question of what is the formal structure which characterizes a mathematical system. From the point of view of the pure mathematician, mathematics is a game played out with symbols, derived from arbitrary postulates, which characterize the nature of the system. For example, in the class of all integers, there exists an operation (addition) which is commutative and associative, with an identity element (zero), and in which every element (integer) possesses an additive inverse. Whitehead and Russell attempted to show that the mathematics (arithmetic and algebra) of the integers could be derived from pure logic alone, and they wrote a monumental 3 volume treatise attempting to do so. Only well into volume II did they finally prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Now if one can derive cardinality from logic, then ordinary arithmetic has a well defined meaning derivable from logic (pure reason). Then the statement 2 + 2 = 5 is false (within such a structure). As another example, sets (classes of objects) satisfy a formal structure known as Boolean algebra. We know that the set of all subsets of a finite set has a cardinality which is a power of 2. But how can we prove this statement from the postulates of Boolean algebra only? The most straightforward way in my opinion is to derive operations from (union) and (intersection) which satisfy the group theoretic postulates (with a little cleverness, this is not hard to do). This group is a "binary group" in the sense that each element is its own additive inverse. This is quite a different result than obtains for the integers. Then using some well known group theoretic results, one can show that the cardinality of the structure must be a power of 2. This result can thus be obtained from the postulates of Boolean algebra alone, and without reference to their realization in set theory. Any finite Boolean algebra has a cardinality which is a power of two. Applied mathematics is a discipline which takes the structures/patterns of pure mathematics and finds real world realizations. (In practice, the process of discovery/invention in mathematics is quite the converse; one solves a real-world problem, and then abstracts the solution to a form of pure mathematics). Mathematical physics is a branch of applied mathematics in which mathematics is applied to the discipline of physics. Thus finite groups, space groups, tensor calculus, sherical harmonics, differential equations, topological fiber bundles, and so on, are are employed in mathematical physics. Truth in the discipline of mathematical physics is very different from truth in pure mathematics. The idea of truth in pure mathematics is something akin to the idea of logical consistency. But truth in mathematical physics entails questions of the correctness of representing the physical world, as well as consistency. However in mathematical physics, a wrong theory can be useful if it illuminates the process of developing real world mathematical models. But the bottom line in physics is that reference is made to experience and experiment to determine questions of truth of theoretical hypotheses. The relevance of pure mathematics to theosophy goes back to Plato. Plato assumed that the structures of pure mathematics actually exist in an ideal realm, and that this ideal realm is the true world of existence, of which our world of experience is only a shadaow. Thus, mathematics as a discipline leads to awareness in the pure realms of existence, the realm of the Soul. Hence, above the entrance to the academies of philosophy was written not only "Man, Know Thyself", but also "Let no man ignorant of mathematics enter herein." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 11:31:17 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 803 Message-ID: <32D3F605.5451@TIW.COM> theos-l@vnet.net wrote: > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:39:29 -0700 (MST) > From: JRC > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will > Message-ID: > > On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > >> > > >> The laws of mathematics are eternal and changeless. Like the laws of > > >> morality and physics, they can be discovered, but never invented. > > >> > > >If you can demonstrate this with something other than just an assertion > > >of your belief, you will have refuted Godel's Theorem. While you may take > > >comfort in the belief that the laws of mathematics are "eternal and > > >changeless", no working mathematician has given serious credibility to > > >that idea in close to half a century ... its seen in the field as a > > >charming, if unsophisticated, superstition from the past. Myself, as > > >well as several friends, would be most interested to see a formal proof of > > >your statement ... as it would likely be worth a Nobel Prize. > > > > I would be curious to know the name of the individual who arbitrarily > > decided that 2+2=4. But I'm flattered that you told my idea to several of > > your friends. I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, > > also. When might 2+2 become 5? > > > I didn't tell my friends - the ones I have in mind are mathematicians whom > I consult when I need advice about the nuances of econometrics ... and > whom I 've had discussions with concerning Godel's thought. The notion of > "formal proof" that you quote as though it is suspect in some way is a > concept from mathematics - it has very definite meaning. Godel's formal > proof is several dozen pages of brilliant and tightly argued mathematical > logic. If your statement, which is a virtually direct refutation of his > argument, is to be accepted as true, it *would* win you a Nobel Prize, but > you'll have to actually construct one of those "rational arguments" you > are so famous for ... and if you can do so, I will gladly show my friends > the argument, and if the argument was actually something containing > substance, they would gladly submit your name to the Nobel Committee. The Nobel Committee does not award prizes in mathematics, and no one has ever been a Nobel Laureate in Mathematics. However, there is a prestigious award in Mathematics which is known as the "Field Medal" I believe. The Nobel Committee does award prizes in physics; however physicists (as physicists) are disinterested in questions of logic and pure mathematics discussed here. > However, the delightful and transparent attempt to detract attention from > the idiocy of your first statement by demanding proof that 2+2 might not > equal four is hardly an argument. Whitehead and Russel did prove that 1+1=2 starting only from pure logic. (This took hundreds of pages of difficult formulae). And with a little more work (I hesitate to say just a little more work), I am sure that they could have gotten 2+2=4 as well. But there are algebraic structures in which a.(b+c)=(a.b)+c; very different from the law in ordinary algebra in which a.(b+c)=(a.b)+(a.c). But I'm afraid that's another game entirely. > > You made a definative statement about the nature of mathematical laws. > This is a claim that has been extensively discussed in the field, and is > widely agreed to have been fully resolved earlier in the century. I asked > for *proof* of the rationality of that statement ... the step by step > logic you use to not just present the idea as an opinion, but as a fact. > As I *have* read Godel's proof, Godel's proof is built entirely on the structure of logic created by Whitehead and Russell. This concerns the formal undecidability of certain propositions. But I wonder if we were to leave Whitehead and Russell alone, and reformulate the matter in a different way, if Godels result would still obtain? >I would be most interested to compare > your chain of reasoning to his. The question is not whether 2+2=4 ... it > is whether Godel's proof, considered in the field to be one of the most > brilliant pieces of mathematics in the history of the field, and one that > in the rarefied circles of pure mathematics is considered an event equal > in stature to the creation of the calculus, is *wrong*. You (clearly not > even realizing it), are claiming that it is. > > And it is this kind of thing I meant when in another post I said you used > "freshman logic". Your statement about the nature of mathematical laws is > nothing but your opinion, yet it is framed as though it is a "rational > fact". Even further, it has been *proved* wrong by a man using logical and > mathematical reasoning at a level probably beyond your ability to even > begin to grasp, let alone refute. You use, once again, the tactic you > often do, which is that when someone actually challenges one of your > statements, and demands the "rational argument" you so often demand others > use, you do not respond by doing so, but instead try to introduce some > different question. It won't work. You made a statement. According to the > field of mathematics, persuaded by a magnificent and elegant piece of work > by Godel, your statement is just simply *wrong*. And judging by the level > of your response, it seems likely you don't have the intellectual capacity > to even understand why ... however, if you'd care to read Godel's proof, > and offer your criticism of even a single statement, a considerable number > of people would be quite interested in seeing you do so. > -JRC JRC, Godel's work is an absolutely beautiful result, we all agree. But to what extent is its universality limited by being tied to the formal structure created by Whitehead and Russell? Now on this last point, I'm afraid that the only relevance to theosophy might be that Russell's brother Frank was a Buddhist, with whom he might have discussed once or twice some points of Buddhist logic. > > ------------------------------ > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 15:15:44 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Christmas Eve communion Message-ID: <199701082015.PAA14255@leo.vsla.edu> On Christmas Eve I went for the first time in about 30 years to the church where I was baptized and which many of my relatives still attend. Semi-reluctantly, I went with my mother who would otherwise not go out at that hour; but was very glad to have done so. The experience inspired some reflections on Christianity and Theosophical attitudes toward it. It was somewhat surprising to find that singing hymns and listening to a choir could be so thoroughly pleasurable, that a minister's sermon could make me want to shout "Amen" (Methodists don't, though), and that seeing all those folks from the distant past would inspire such warm feelings. But the biggest surprise was communion. The sermon really set up the communion experience, since it was a "prodigal daughter" story about a father who welcomed his wayward child home. The minister emphasized that *all* people were invited to share communion, that our true home was with God who was eternally loving and welcoming, and that Christmas Eve service was especially a homecoming for people who had moved away or lost touch with the church. The overwhelming message was of all-embracing acceptance and love. Sounds shallow and trite in the retelling, but I guess you had to be there-- the atmosphere was intensely magical and uplifting. Even as a teen, I was cynically critical of communion service, thinking the Last Supper a "myth" and therefore silly, and the "body and blood" stuff primitive and gross. A few years as a Baha'i reinforced the tendency to look down on Christianity, and then many years of immersion in HPB strengthened that tendency to the max. Even if I had grown more open-minded in recent years, there was still no real emotional openness to the Christian *experience*. And then, in this service in the old home town church I'd shunned for most of my life, I *got it* in a way that had eluded me before. Partly it may have been the minister's eloquence, but mostly my own attitude had changed. What became so abundantly clear is that this experience was really not at all about some dogma concerning the death of Jesus and its effects on our own route to heaven. It was quite transparently a joyous celebration of the universal siblinghood of humanity as reflected in that microcosm. The preacher was talking about, and people were feeling, a sense of reconciliation that extended from individuals' relationship with God to include their relationship with humanity and specifically with the people present at the service. I left feeling quite humbled at the recognition that I had never truly appreciated the beauty of the spiritual tradition in which I'd been reared. Of course part of the backdrop for these feelings was the awareness that Theosophical organizations which talk about universal brotherhood had never in my observation walked the walk to the degree I was seeing at that moment, preoccupied instead with their exclusive rights as channels to the highest wisdom. And recent monitoring of Baha'i developments has shown that too to be a movement overwhelmed with its own superiority to other religions, without much sense of what all-embracing acceptance means. to be continued-- someone has to fax on the line I'm now using. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 15:22:11 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <970108142029_1723595122@emout17.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-07 19:50:03 EST, you write: << JRC wrote: >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*. I don't particularly care about the politics of the TS, and I have never seen the slightest bit of suppression of ideas in the 3 years that I have been involved. If anything, new members are encouraged too much to say what they have to say. I found the above statement to be incredible when I first heard it, but, just to prove how open-minded I can be, I thought I would ask Willamay Pym about the Boston Lodge fiasco, to which I believe it is referring. She said that she was a member of the national board while it was going on, and she got the biggest kick tonight out of my repetition of the above statement. She told me that there was a dispute over the property owned by the Boston Lodge, that HQ feared that individuals would end up keeping property that belonged to the scoiety, and she described the idea that $500,000 was spent suing them, as well as the idea that HQ would sue any of its lodges because they studied Alice Bailey, as "crazy." It's a close one, but I think I will take Willamay's word for it over the word of someone who thinks it would be "cool" if Alexis was still around. >> Tom Robertson's response to JRC's statement is essentially correct. I had a telephone conversation last year with another former Board Member who lives near Philadelphia. I was told basically the same thing...that there was a dispute over TS ownership versus private ownership of the Lodge property in Boston. Nothing was ever mentioned about any lawsuit over the teachings of Alice Bailey. I'm not really a fan of HQ in Wheaton, but such an action on their part would be bizarre, to say the least. How could such a case be won in court over such a silly issue. How would someone (like a judge or jurors) outside the theosophical spectrum even understand such a controversy? Anyway Alice Baileyites could claim that they're just another school of theosophy and have as much right to present their ideas at Lodge meetings as do Blavaskyites and so-called "neo-theosophists" (Leadbeater, Besant, Hodson, et al). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:47:10 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: Re: Belated responses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <199701082147.OAA18946@mailhost.azstarnet.com> K. Paul Johnson writes on theos-l: >I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is >motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work. >This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of >Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie >to help Dr. Lane upload it onto his website. That rigid belief >system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his >statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism. Does it really matter what my motivations were in writing my critique of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and KH? Does it really matter whether I am motivated by a rigid belief system or not? *Readers of my critique can look at the arguments I gave and the evidence I cited and decide whether my arguments hold water or not.* Have I presented evidence ,etc. which shows that Johnson's thesis is wrong? That is the question to be answered. Even if my "motivations" intrude into the text, I would hope some readers are intelligent enough to discern between those "intrusions" and the issues, arguments and evidence presented in my critique. But here we see Johnson being a therapist and analysing my belief system. How does Johnson know what I really believe? No doubt, I have a "belief" system. Doesn't Johnson? Doesn't most people? If I am wrong in my "beliefs" on the Masters, then please tell me more than that I am wrong. What am I not considering? Where am I wrong in my assumptions, etc.? Win me over with rational discussion, etc. instead of simply telling me I have a rigid belief system. I have tried to show in some detail with numerous examples where I believe Johnson has gone astray in his research on the Masters M. and K.H. I would think that even Dr. David Lane, who says he knows little about Theosophical history, would be able to see some of the points I attempted to make in the critique and some of the issues involved. It would appear that Johnson is using an ad hominem argument. Johnson seems to be saying: Distract by focusing on Caldwell; don't deal with the issues Caldwell raised in his critique. Isn't this similar to those Theosophists who have questioned Johnson's motivations instead of dealing with the substance of Johnson's arguments? I have no idea what Johnson's motivations were in writing his books. I assume they were all good but I don't really care. Does Johnson really know what my belief system is or how rigid it is? Or is he just blowing smoke to distract from the issues I wrote about in HOUSE OF CARDS? Here is part of my central argument in HOUSE OF CARDS: "In summary, it would appear that Johnson wants to use some of Olcott's testimony on the Masters to buttress his own thesis, but would prefer to downplay or omit other testimony by Olcott that is not consistent with and, in fact, contradicts his conjectures. Although he accused Mr. Richard-Nafarre of 'evading evidence,' is Johnson not guilty himself of ignoring evidence and testimony 'presumably because it conflicts with other sources he prefers'? Furthermore, Johnson is quite willing to accuse Ramaswamier of lying when the latter's testimony of meeting Morya in Sikkim contradicts ohnson's speculations. But Olcott's testimony of the Master Morya coming to Bombay on numerous occasions also runs counter to Johnson's conjectures. Is 'something' wrong with Olcott's Bombay testimony? Is Johnson willing to entertain the possibility that Olcott mmight also be giving false testimony? But if Olcott is lying about the Master's appearances at Bombay, who (except Johnson??) would be foolish enough to accept Olcott's other testimony about adepts visiting him in New York, Amritsar, and Lahore?" "Let it be clearly understood, I am not suggesting that Olcott lied about any of his meetings with the Adepts. In fact, I agree with Johnson that Olcott encountered real adepts in New York, Amritsar and Lahore. But I would go further and maintain that the remaining encounters Olcott had with adepts at Bombay, Colombo and elsewhere should also be taken at face value. In other words, if one wants to be consistent in one's thinking on the subject, why accept some of Olcott's testimony on the Masters while rejecting or at least ignoring the rest of it? Of course, Johnson has a thesis that he is obliged to defend. He has committed himself to certain identifications of the Masters M. and K.H. Has Johnson painted himself into the proverbial 'corner'?" To illustrate this argument of mine, I gave in my critique numerous detailed examples from the primary Theosophical sources. My critique on Johnson's thesis concerning M. and K.H. can be found on the World Wide Web at this URL address: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 16:24:56 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Post-Christian era? Message-ID: <199701082124.QAA23931@leo.vsla.edu> To continue, I have recently been struck by the arrogance with which some non-Christians dismiss Christianity as passe, and ignore obvious signs that this is not the case. As a measure of cultural significance, consider this: a WorldCat search finds a total of some 80,000 books on the subject of Jesus, 18,000 about Muhammad, 7,000 about Buddha, 200 odd about Baha'u'llah and HPB who are regarded by their admirers as superseding previous religions. (Purucker at least portrays her as a Messianic figure, and ULT seems to do the same, although Adyar has tended to place Krishnamurti in that role instead.) 1.3 billion believers make Christianity still by far the largest world religion, and more importantly it has has the greatest internal diversity with more than a thousand different varieties. In the twentieth century Christianity has shown vastly more ability to adapt, be self-critical, and embrace new ways of understanding itself and its founder than any other religion. Baha'i and Theosophy are particularly lacking in these qualities, despite being quite emphatic in seeing themselves as triumphant in a post-Christian world. The experience of communion in that Christmas Eve service helped me understand why Christianity is so vital despite the dire predictions of its opponents. There is something emotionally powerful and simple about its basic symbolism that have enabled it to adapt to a greater number of cultures than any other religion. And I suspect that the triumphalism of nineteenth century movements that thought they'd displace Christianity has turned sour now that their hopes have been dashed. There's so much bullshit among Theosophists about who is and is not a real Theosophist, so much of the same kind of exclusivism in Baha'i where believers are always bashing one another as not being orthodox enough. It was a real homecoming in a number of ways to go to that service where the message was essentially "We don't care what you believe, who you are, what you've done-- you are welcome at the table of the Lord's supper, to share our oneness with Christ at a level that cannot be expressed in words or understood in concepts." Jesus is still more avant-garde than any of his supposed successors, which is why Christianity will probably thrive in its third millennium just as it has for the first two. Sorry if this is incoherent-- interruptions abound. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 13:34:14 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 804 Message-ID: <32D412D6.7AA@TIW.COM> theos-l@vnet.net wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 10:31:26 -0800 > From: Tim Maroney > To: > Subject: Re: mathematical philosophy > Message-ID: <199701081832.KAA61544@scv3.apple.com> > > >You made a definative statement about the nature of mathematical laws. > >This is a claim that has been extensively discussed in the field, and is > >widely agreed to have been fully resolved earlier in the century. > > I'm sorry, but I have to differ. The subject is by no means considered > resolved. To the extent that there is a dominant philosopher in the area, > it would have to be the rather cranky but well-regarded Karl Popper, who > insisted in no equivocal terms that mathematical laws pre-exist their > discovery (while at the same time indulging in some self-contradictory > screeds attacking a straw man version of Platonic idealism). If your > mathematician friends are telling you that this issue was settled by > Godel's Theorem, they are not accurately respresenting the state of > mathematical philosophy. > > I should mention, les I be accused of bias, that I consider mathematical > laws to be psychological phenomena and not physical realities. I just > can't go along with a statement that the world has come to share my > position. It hasn't. > > Tim Maroney > > ------------------------------ I agree with Tim Maroney that the question is unresolved in the sense that competing philosophical theories are quite viable. The psychological aspect of mathematical discovery/invention is also a relavant subject about which whole books have been written (e.g., The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field, by Jacques Hadamard), and which ties in with the attitude of the practicing mathematician. Nevertheless, Pure Mathematics exists as a subject aside from any considerations of psychology. Certain intuitive mathematicians approach the subject from the point of view that they are capturing a glimpse of an already existant reality, and thus, they are making a "discovery". If there is indeed a Platonic realm of Ideals, and a way of getting there, then pure mathematics is a voyage of discovery. But another point of view will see the entire enterprise as the free creation of the human mind, a kind of art, a kind of poetry. So just because we invent some mathematics doesn't mean there is anything "out there" which already existed, and which we have now found. These are questions which must be attacked by the professional philosophers, and in the mean time, mathematicians will keep on doing mathematics. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 16:47:11 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: conservatism Message-ID: <970108142614_1890532864@emout12.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-08 00:30:43 EST, you write: << Your views of liberal and conservative are much different from mine. My idea of a liberal is someone who believes that people in government are so good, and people who are not in government are so helpless without people in government, that big government is necessary to help people not in government get by. My idea of a conservative is someone who believes that the most important issue in politics is that, since power so easily corrupts, no one has too much power, preferring as decentralized and limited a government as possible. >> I have a hard time figuring out who wrote who to whom, but whoever wrote the above passage, I say right on. A nicely expressed view of conservatism. LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:47:10 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: Re: Belated responses by K. Paul Johnson Message-ID: <199701082147.OAA18946@mailhost.azstarnet.com> K. Paul Johnson writes on theos-l: >I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is >motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work. >This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of >Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie >to help Dr. Lane upload it onto his website. That rigid belief >system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his >statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism. Does it really matter what my motivations were in writing my critique of Johnson's thesis on the Masters M. and KH? Does it really matter whether I am motivated by a rigid belief system or not? *Readers of my critique can look at the arguments I gave and the evidence I cited and decide whether my arguments hold water or not.* Have I presented evidence ,etc. which shows that Johnson's thesis is wrong? That is the question to be answered. Even if my "motivations" intrude into the text, I would hope some readers are intelligent enough to discern between those "intrusions" and the issues, arguments and evidence presented in my critique. But here we see Johnson being a therapist and analysing my belief system. How does Johnson know what I really believe? No doubt, I have a "belief" system. Doesn't Johnson? Doesn't most people? If I am wrong in my "beliefs" on the Masters, then please tell me more than that I am wrong. What am I not considering? Where am I wrong in my assumptions, etc.? Win me over with rational discussion, etc. instead of simply telling me I have a rigid belief system. I have tried to show in some detail with numerous examples where I believe Johnson has gone astray in his research on the Masters M. and K.H. I would think that even Dr. David Lane, who says he knows little about Theosophical history, would be able to see some of the points I attempted to make in the critique and some of the issues involved. It would appear that Johnson is using an ad hominem argument. Johnson seems to be saying: Distract by focusing on Caldwell; don't deal with the issues Caldwell raised in his critique. Isn't this similar to those Theosophists who have questioned Johnson's motivations instead of dealing with the substance of Johnson's arguments? I have no idea what Johnson's motivations were in writing his books. I assume they were all good but I don't really care. Does Johnson really know what my belief system is or how rigid it is? Or is he just blowing smoke to distract from the issues I wrote about in HOUSE OF CARDS? Here is part of my central argument in HOUSE OF CARDS: "In summary, it would appear that Johnson wants to use some of Olcott's testimony on the Masters to buttress his own thesis, but would prefer to downplay or omit other testimony by Olcott that is not consistent with and, in fact, contradicts his conjectures. Although he accused Mr. Richard-Nafarre of 'evading evidence,' is Johnson not guilty himself of ignoring evidence and testimony 'presumably because it conflicts with other sources he prefers'? Furthermore, Johnson is quite willing to accuse Ramaswamier of lying when the latter's testimony of meeting Morya in Sikkim contradicts ohnson's speculations. But Olcott's testimony of the Master Morya coming to Bombay on numerous occasions also runs counter to Johnson's conjectures. Is 'something' wrong with Olcott's Bombay testimony? Is Johnson willing to entertain the possibility that Olcott mmight also be giving false testimony? But if Olcott is lying about the Master's appearances at Bombay, who (except Johnson??) would be foolish enough to accept Olcott's other testimony about adepts visiting him in New York, Amritsar, and Lahore?" "Let it be clearly understood, I am not suggesting that Olcott lied about any of his meetings with the Adepts. In fact, I agree with Johnson that Olcott encountered real adepts in New York, Amritsar and Lahore. But I would go further and maintain that the remaining encounters Olcott had with adepts at Bombay, Colombo and elsewhere should also be taken at face value. In other words, if one wants to be consistent in one's thinking on the subject, why accept some of Olcott's testimony on the Masters while rejecting or at least ignoring the rest of it? Of course, Johnson has a thesis that he is obliged to defend. He has committed himself to certain identifications of the Masters M. and K.H. Has Johnson painted himself into the proverbial 'corner'?" To illustrate this argument of mine, I gave in my critique numerous detailed examples from the primary Theosophical sources. My critique on Johnson's thesis concerning M. and K.H. can be found on the World Wide Web at this URL address: http://www.azstarnet.com/~blafoun/johnson.htm Daniel H. Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 15:17:51 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: I Me Mine Message-ID: <32D42B17.2CC4@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >Forms are commonly called "reality," >but, since they constantly change, their identity having no duration, I >would not include them in my definition of "reality." Geez Tom, You recently spent a lot of energy trying to back up the notion that individuals constantly change, have no duration and hence no reality. Now you feign to make a statement that "forms are not real either" and then go on to say that "you" (presumably an individual? functionally dependant on a form or a set of forms?) have a definition of reality (isn't that just another mental form?) that you can create (how reliable a "principle" can it be if you're just making it up as you go along?) by choosing to additively include things as you fancy them. Aren't you just piling up lots of mental smoke into puffy little balls and then sneezing them into smithereens? I hope you're getting off on all this, because it's the only thing in what you said that makes any "real" sense to me. 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: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:10:18 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Post-Christian era? Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > There's so much bullshit among Theosophists about who > is and is not a real Theosophist, so much of the same kind of > exclusivism in Baha'i where believers are always bashing one > another as not being orthodox enough. It was a real homecoming > in a number of ways to go to that service where the message was > essentially "We don't care what you believe, who you are, what > you've done-- you are welcome at the table of the Lord's > supper, to share our oneness with Christ at a level that cannot > be expressed in words or understood in concepts." Paul ... While I agree in part with a lot of the post (I don't myself "believe" in Christianity, but I do admire the art of ceremonial magic, and the Catholic Church in particular puts on a magnificent ceremony - that is ... I like it for aesthetic rather than philosophical reasons. But I must point out that one cannot compare the high point of one tradition to the shadow of another ... Certainly there aree places and moments of wonderful unity and warmth in Christianity - but there are in Theosophy as well. And just as surely there are places in Christianity in which who is or is not a "real" Christian is subject of vehement discussion. In fact that sort of discussion has grown somewhat dramatically in recent years with the rise of fundamentalisms. IMO to really compare Theosophy with Christianity the best should be compared to the best, and the shadows to the shadows. At its best, Theosophy seems (IMO) to contain concepts that lead to behaviour as selfless, altruistic and graceful as the best of Christianity - and if one wants to compare shadows, I wonder whether Christianity is not somewhat worse ... after all, while Adyar excommunicated the Canadian and Danish Sections, it didn't make its arguments with plastic explosives ... which Christianity at its worst has (and still is) known to resort to. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:07:18 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: Belated responses Message-ID: <9701090107.AA24742@toto.csustan.edu> KPJ >At the risk of confirming JHE's judgment >that I only post about that topic, I have a few comments. JHE If there is anything I hate it is being misquoted. The phrase I used was "overwhelming majority." Please check your archives. While we are on the subject of mis-quoting, I saw Coker last week while visiting the Pasadena folk. Coker flat out denied that he told you that I told Brett not to read your book. That is strike three for you. KPJ >I find it interesting that Daniel Caldwell denies that he is >motivated by a rigid belief system in his attacks on my work. >This theme is a significant part of my reply to his "House of >Cards" which has been completed weeks ago but awaits a techie >to help Dr. Lane upload it onto his website. That rigid belief >system is quite apparent in his writings, although I accept his >statement as evidence that he is not aware of his own dogmatism. JHE "That rigid belief system" wasn't apparent to me either. What is Caldwell's "rigid belief system"? More importantly, how does this supposed belief system invalidate his criticism of your book? Is it a new rule that only people who have no beliefs or opinions of their own may criticise your research? Paul, your argument here appears to be ad hominem to me. May I suggest that the people who don't agree with the thesis in your book are no better or worse than the people who do agree with your thesis. ------------------------------------------ |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, 8 Jan 1997 19:24:41 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Hey ladies, guess what!? Message-ID: <199701090124.UAA05294@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > I got a job as a bank teller yesterday. What dya know? Maybe being a man > isn't so bad after all? Yeah. Just watch out for all those ladies trying to pinch you. You're in a unique position here. You can tell if a woman is wealthy before you make a pass at her or ask for her phone number. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 00:43:48 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The New Year Message-ID: Mercury is frequently assigned by various sorts of occultists to Wednesday. Monday, Moon; Tuesday, Mars; Thursday, Jupiter; Saturday, Saturn; Sunday, The Sun. Bit of a surprise in there, huh? :-) Alan In message <199701041714.MAA06251@cliff.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >---------- >> From: John Straughn >> >> OH! Ann, I have a queestion for you. I believe I read somewhere that if >a >> month or week starts on a wednesday, that month or week is a Mercury >month or >> week. (I think it pertained to months, ...hehe, please forgive my >brain-fart) >> This year started on a wednesday, (unless you go by the new year >starting on >> Jan. 4) ...so would that make this year a mercury year? >> --- >Got me hanging on this one. No, I never heard of this, but there's a great >deal of astrological stuff like that out there (not necessarily the truth >either). >The data is so immense that I limit my study. Can anyone else here >address this? > >-AEB --------- 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, 08 Jan 1997 19:31:34 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Christmas Eve communion Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970109013134.006ca190@mail.eden.com> At 03:48 PM 1/8/97 -0500, you wrote: > >On Christmas Eve I went for the first time in about 30 years to >the church where I was baptized and which many of my relatives >still attend. Semi-reluctantly, I went with my mother who >would otherwise not go out at that hour; but was very glad to >have done so. The experience inspired some reflections on >Christianity and Theosophical attitudes toward it. > >It was somewhat surprising to find that singing hymns and >listening to a choir could be so thoroughly pleasurable, that a >minister's sermon could make me want to shout "Amen" >(Methodists don't, though), and that seeing all those folks >from the distant past would inspire such warm feelings. But >the biggest surprise was communion. The sermon really set up >the communion experience, since it was a "prodigal daughter" >story about a father who welcomed his wayward child home. The >minister emphasized that *all* people were invited to share >communion, that our true home was with God who was eternally >loving and welcoming, and that Christmas Eve service was >especially a homecoming for people who had moved away or lost >touch with the church. The overwhelming message was of >all-embracing acceptance and love. Sounds shallow and trite in >the retelling, but I guess you had to be there-- the atmosphere >was intensely magical and uplifting. > >Even as a teen, I was cynically critical of communion service, >thinking the Last Supper a "myth" and therefore silly, and the >"body and blood" stuff primitive and gross. A few years as a >Baha'i reinforced the tendency to look down on Christianity, >and then many years of immersion in HPB strengthened that >tendency to the max. Even if I had grown more open-minded in >recent years, there was still no real emotional openness to the >Christian *experience*. And then, in this service in the old >home town church I'd shunned for most of my life, I *got it* in >a way that had eluded me before. Partly it may have been the >minister's eloquence, but mostly my own attitude had changed. >What became so abundantly clear is that this experience was >really not at all about some dogma concerning the death of >Jesus and its effects on our own route to heaven. It was >quite transparently a joyous celebration of the universal >siblinghood of humanity as reflected in that microcosm. The >preacher was talking about, and people were feeling, a sense of >reconciliation that extended from individuals' relationship >with God to include their relationship with humanity and >specifically with the people present at the service. I left >feeling quite humbled at the recognition that I had never truly >appreciated the beauty of the spiritual tradition in which I'd >been reared. > >Of course part of the backdrop for these feelings was the >awareness that Theosophical organizations which talk about >universal brotherhood had never in my observation walked the walk >to the degree I was seeing at that moment, preoccupied instead with >their exclusive rights as channels to the highest wisdom. And recent ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >monitoring of Baha'i developments has shown that too to be a movement >overwhelmed with its own superiority to other religions, >without much sense of what all-embracing acceptance means. > >to be continued-- someone has to fax on the line I'm now using. > Here my 2 cents worth. I have seen occassions wherein whether it is in a Church, or a Mosque, or Hindu Temple or Zoroastrian Temple, or even some important occassions, there is the elevated sense of something peaceful, loving, joyful which cannot be easily explained. It is there no matter what your personal beliefs are. I have seen this in TS meetings as well. This issue of your observing that in Theosophical organizations you have noticed the preoccupation with their exclusive rights as channels to the highest wisdom, is something you may have seen. But my experience, especially in India has been that you will see a truly brotherly/sisterly feeling and openness in every lodge I have been to. Of course you do find one or two snobs in each lodge who think and act as if they are somehow superior because of their (imagined) feeling closer to the higher beings than rest of the people. These are my observations. Everyone else's mileage and direction may vary. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 01:51:28 +0000 From: Alan Subject: Welcome ... Message-ID: THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Richard Trump of California! Richard is a member of TS Pasadena. E-mail: rtrump@glenn-co.k12.ca.us [That's "twelve" after the 'k' not "L2"] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 19:31:36 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970109013136.006cf074@mail.eden.com> At 03:59 PM 1/8/97 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-01-07 19:50:03 EST, you write: > ><< JRC wrote: > > >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*. > > I don't particularly care about the politics of the TS, and I have never > seen the slightest bit of suppression of ideas in the 3 years that I have > been involved. If anything, new members are encouraged too much to say > what they have to say. I found the above statement to be incredible when I > first heard it, but, just to prove how open-minded I can be, I thought I > would ask Willamay Pym about the Boston Lodge fiasco, to which I believe it > is referring. She said that she was a member of the national board while > it was going on, and she got the biggest kick tonight out of my repetition > of the above statement. She told me that there was a dispute over the > property owned by the Boston Lodge, that HQ feared that individuals would > end up keeping property that belonged to the scoiety, and she described the > idea that $500,000 was spent suing them, as well as the idea that HQ would > sue any of its lodges because they studied Alice Bailey, as "crazy." It's > a close one, but I think I will take Willamay's word for it over the word > of someone who thinks it would be "cool" if Alexis was still around. >> > > >Tom Robertson's response to JRC's statement is essentially correct. I had a >telephone conversation last year with another former Board Member who lives >near Philadelphia. I was told basically the same thing...that there was a >dispute over TS ownership versus private ownership of the Lodge property in >Boston. Nothing was ever mentioned about any lawsuit over the teachings of >Alice Bailey. I'm not really a fan of HQ in Wheaton, but such an action on >their part would be bizarre, to say the least. How could such a case be won >in court over such a silly issue. How would someone (like a judge or jurors) >outside the theosophical spectrum even understand such a controversy? Anyway >Alice Baileyites could claim that they're just another school of theosophy >and have as much right to present their ideas at Lodge meetings as do >Blavaskyites and so-called "neo-theosophists" (Leadbeater, Besant, Hodson, et >al). > There was a lot of first hand information posted on Boston Lodge affair about a year ago on theos-l. I am sure they are available in the archives. They throw a lot of light and will help everyone to understand and make up their own mind. The bottom line is no one misappropriated any of the property and no one personally benfitted from the property. The only ones who came out ahead were the lawyers who got a lion's share. It is rather unfortunate that money donated by earnest Theosophists for spreading the motto "There is no Religion Higher Than Truth", was wasted on litigation. The donors, if they are able to see from whatever plane they are now, they will shed tears and would be heartbroken. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 19:31:38 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Near Death Experiences Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970109013138.006b35fc@mail.eden.com> At 10:35 AM 1/8/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss writes: >>It happened several decades ago to me. I went to see a movie and was not >>feeling good. During a break when I was in rest room I passed out. I thought >>I am dead, and not at all fearful or apprehensive after being to many TS >>meetings where Life after Death was discussed. Was waiting to see what >>happens next. Lo and behold, to all my great surprise I was back. May be >>what ever that decides whether one goes forward to death or not, seems to >>have decided that I am better of back on earth. May be it was my destiny >>that I should be here today and writing this. That's all. >> >> >>MKR >Do you remember anything that occurred while you were "passed out"? The >reason that I ask is because I have a friend who has, on occasion had the same >thing occur and at one point he thought that he did, in fact, die. However, >he had been passed out for several hours and the only thing he remembered was >thinking that he had died. Thinking that one has died does not always >represent actual death, however, I suppose that if one truly believed he were >dead, he or she might have the ability to kill themselves if the belief were >strong enough. But that's not what I'm really getting at, I don't think. > >The type of NDE's I am referring to are the ones where people believe that >they have "seen and spoken to God". some after a tunnel, some not. I was >wondering if anyone has some speculation on what the image of the tunnel >actually is, whether it be nomenal or phenomenal, or simply an overactive >imagination. >--- >The Triaist > MKR: I was just blacked out. It all took place in a matter of minutes -- one or two. I am not even sure if it had anything to do with near death experience. Having read and listened to a lot of Theosophical material, I wonder even if I were to have a real near death experience, I would be expecting to meet not God -- in what ever form -- but the following in order of priority (just don't consider this seriously) 1. The present Presidents of TS and TSA, if they are capable of functioning on the other side. (If this were to happen, I will have a chance to communicate in an open and uninhibited manner -- which will help everybody). 2. All the past Presidents of TS, TSA (if they are still around and functional on the other side). (Have paid my dues and supported them in however small manner). 3. Krishnaji. 4. All the Enlightened Beings. Have tried to do what I can to help my fellow beings. These Enlightened Ones are surely are the ones who have said "Ingratitude is not One of their Vices". 5. All other Higher Beings including Solar Logos, if they deem it appropriate to see this lowly novice human. I am sure there are others on this list who may have very interesting first hand NDE and I would be very interested to see/hear about them. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 8 21:26:54 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Hey ladies, guess what!? Message-ID: <199701090226.VAA19348@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >---------- >> From: John Straughn >> >> I got a job as a bank teller yesterday. What dya know? Maybe being a >man >> isn't so bad after all? > >Yeah. Just watch out for all those ladies trying to pinch you. >You're in a unique position here. You can tell if a woman is >wealthy before you make a pass at her or ask for her phone >number. > >-AEB ROFL (rolling on the floor laughing) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 19:27:40 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701090227.TAA16419@snowden.micron.net> Mark wrote: >Aren't you just piling up lots of mental smoke into puffy little balls and then >sneezing them into smithereens? Please! Mark! May I borrow this? :-) Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 02:06:56 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Of mice and poverty Message-ID: <5V2IWoAALF1yEwvR@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <970107005425_1790468061@emout14.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >You have a massive dose of sympathy and two machines sending healing energy. > >Chuck the Heretic That's real grea ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... t! Could you turn one over to my friend now? 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: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 02:22:50 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Christmas Eve communion Message-ID: In message <199701082015.PAA14255@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >And then, in this service in the old >home town church I'd shunned for most of my life, I *got it* in >a way that had eluded me before. Partly it may have been the >minister's eloquence, but mostly my own attitude had changed. >What became so abundantly clear is that this experience was >really not at all about some dogma concerning the death of >Jesus and its effects on our own route to heaven. It was >quite transparently a joyous celebration of the universal >siblinghood of humanity as reflected in that microcosm. As a very EX-bishop, I follow your thought very well. Deep study of relgion and theology led me to dump Jesus and the HE-God. Experimentation showed, however, that the communion, if properly done, works very well without them ... [...who's this guy with the pitchfork? Why is he on fire? What does he want with me .... DON'T PANIC .... there's always another life .... "Hey, fireball! Who are you calling a sucker? Huh? HUH?] Enter men in white coats, stage left. 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, 9 Jan 1997 01:59:36 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma (Re-submission) Message-ID: <0VkL2gAIEF1yEwOO@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199701080150.SAA04110@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >>"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on >>the ground without your Father ... >> ..without the God guy noticing, yeah. The sparrow still falls though. Thud. So it seems do we. 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, 9 Jan 1997 02:27:15 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: In message <970108114324_578240756@emout19.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Well, if he's in Cornwall, he's probably gone into the hen rescuing business >:) > >Chuck the Heretic ??????????????????????????????????????????????? squawk 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, 9 Jan 1997 02:11:15 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <7lWIawADPF1yEwtQ@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message , JRC writes >Would you >also have investigated Watergate by asking Nixon whether he did it? Who else? 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, 9 Jan 1997 02:08:49 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Advice to Alan Message-ID: <$FaJSvAxMF1yEwPP@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199701070621.BAA26607@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >TAKE THERA-FLU. Max-Str. Night time. Does wonders. Just make sure you >don't have to do anything for a couple of days:) >--- >The Triaist > This is England. Never heard of the stuff. I'm getting better now anyhow, but it was a kind thought - thanks. Alan. The Monogenetic --------- 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, 9 Jan 1997 02:03:11 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Near Death Experiences Message-ID: <2lBLqlAfHF1yEwsM@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199701080632.BAA22315@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >I'm not sure how often this topic comes up on this list, but I haven't seen it >on here in the four or five months that I've been on, so here goes. I have a >few questions about the different theories of the people on this list as far >as what takes place during the "death". I know quite a bit of scientific >explanations as well as a few of my own hypothesis concerning the scientific >and mystical aspects of the phenomena. I was just curious as to what other >people thought of the situation and see if anyone was willing to get off of >the "who's right and who's wrong" rollercoaster for a bit and talk about >something that has nothing to do with sex or race. It seems like an excellent >area for debate as far as being safe from "ego" arguments. Whatdya say? >Anyone for a break on the bashing? >--- >The Triaist > I did the "drowning man" thing at about 14 years old. I really believed my time had come. Maybe I posted this before, and I don't have time or health today to repeat it (rather long) but I with you on this one, as I have had two other dittos. 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, 9 Jan 1997 02:13:37 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: In message , JRC writes >On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > >> Alan, >> >> The Ayatollah is going to be very cross with you. >> >> Chuck the Heretic >> >Hell, Alan's probably hiding Rushdie in his basement. > (-:), -JRC > I had to let him go. No one would pay the ransom, so I was murdered in my bed. I reincarnated immediately in a replica of my original body. THIS WAS A MISTAKE. I still have the arthritis, etc., etc. (No cures 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: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 03:03:54 GMT From: dewberry@poboxes.com (Bee Brown) Subject: NZ Convention Message-ID: <32dc5c31.30308463@mail> Hi all, I suppose some of you may be wondering what happened to us. For some strange reason I got unsubscribed around New Year and didn't find out until it was too late to do anything about it. How that happened just at that time is a mystery to me. I have just re subscribed again so I have missed a few days but I was too busy to read anyway. Everyone had a great time and there were about 12 at the Internet W/shop and we had a cruise around the Theosophy sites and discussed the merits of e-mail. I can now confirm that I am also moving to Auckland to begin work in the office at the Theosophical HQ and my knowledge of the Internet will come in very handy. You may notice that I have a new address which is from the netforward site and it will mean that I can change server as often as I like but as long as I change the pobox accordingly, no disruption will occur. I am sorry that we did not get a discussion going, as we were playing in the Internet during tea breaks and before and after lectures. We were fortunate to have Dr Ravi Ravindra as guest speaker and he gave 2 excellent talks and joined in the activities over the 4 days of the Convention. He is a very nice and gentle man. It was the NZ Section's 100th Convention and also Wanganui's Centenary so we had a large cake, decorated appropriately. Also a bit of free publicity in the local paper. Right now I am tired but not for long as the packing starts next week, something that I am not too fond off. Happy New Year from Down Under, belatedly. Bee Brown 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, 08 Jan 1997 22:19:54 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32D463DA.347F@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > >> Although they can choose to be dishonest about their beliefs, human > >> beings have no choice about what those beliefs are. > > > Please explain this; on the surface, it is trivial to disprove. > > How to act on one's beliefs is subject to free will, but beliefs are > deterministic. I believe that World War 2 ended in 1945. It is not > possible for me to choose to believe it ended last year. Japan plans its wars in 100 year increments. By their system, WWII has not ended yet; it is merely the fronts that have shifted. > >> Human beings have no choice about philosophical laws. > > > Perhaps you are changing the English language to suit yourself? >BY DEFINITION, human beings have choices about philosophical laws, as > >philosophical laws exist only in the human mind (once they can be proven > >to exist outside the human mind, they become SCIENTIFIC laws). > > All human beings have a unique perception of philosophical laws, but the > laws themselves exist independently of human perception. Otherwise, truth > would be entirely subjectivistic, and anyone's truth would be as good as > anyone else's, with no standard to which to compare the value of each > perception. I now am certain that you are not properly differentiating between philosophy and science. > >> Human beings have discovered some laws of logic and of mathematics. > >> We may use them, but they exist independently of us. They cannot be > >> changed. > > > Mathematics is an entirely artificial system, and can be changed at > >will. > > Can you decide that 2+2=5? Can you decide that if all oranges are fruits, > and if X is a fruit, then X must be an orange? Yes. It would not, however, be terribly useful. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 22:23:11 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32D4649F.41FE@sprynet.com> John Straughn wrote: > Oh yeah, and if you can convince the masses to do the same, a different method > of learning may evolve. Who knows? Excellent try, by the way. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 22:07:47 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: NZ Convention Message-ID: <32D46F13.7E83@eden.com> Bee Brown wrote: > > Hi all, > I suppose some of you may be wondering what happened to us. For some > strange reason I got unsubscribed around New Year and didn't find out > until it was too late to do anything about it. How that happened just > at that time is a mystery to me. I have just re subscribed again so I > have missed a few days but I was too busy to read anyway. > Everyone had a great time and there were about 12 at the Internet > W/shop and we had a cruise around the Theosophy sites and discussed > the merits of e-mail. > I can now confirm that I am also moving to Auckland to begin work in > the office at the Theosophical HQ and my knowledge of the Internet > will come in very handy. You may notice that I have a new address > which is from the netforward site and it will mean that I can change > server as often as I like but as long as I change the pobox > accordingly, no disruption will occur. > I am sorry that we did not get a discussion going, as we were playing > in the Internet during tea breaks and before and after lectures. > We were fortunate to have Dr Ravi Ravindra as guest speaker and he > gave 2 excellent talks and joined in the activities over the 4 days of > the Convention. He is a very nice and gentle man. > It was the NZ Section's 100th Convention and also Wanganui's Centenary > so we had a large cake, decorated appropriately. Also a bit of free > publicity in the local paper. Right now I am tired but not for long as > the packing starts next week, something that I am not too fond off. > Happy New Year from Down Under, belatedly. > Bee Brown > Member Theosophy NZ, T.I. > Life is not a problem to be solved; > it is a mystery to be lived. I wish I had known Ravi Ravindra is going to be the speaker. He had a fascinating experience of meeting K and not knowing who he was. Later when he was doing his PhD thesis, he setup an appointment with great difficulty and trouble and when he was ushered into a room to meet K, he was stunned to find out it was the same person he ran into in New Delhi and did not recognize. It was a very great lesson in humility and the low key life style that great people adopt. I wish he was asked and had told the story in his own words and it would have been fascinating as well as would have highlighted the need to be humble and low key. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 21:07:07 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701090507.VAA02061@palrel1.hp.com> >> Titus wrote > and kymsmith@micron.net responded: >> True in a sense. But on grand time scales, I think human beings *are* an >> exception. Man, having consciousness, has a different destiny than mineral, >> plant or animal life. > A different destiny? How many different destinies are there? I don't think, for example, that a plant reincarnates and will become more conscious. That's one difference in destiny. Animals are invaluable supports to man and may reincarnate, but I don't think they will evolve in consciousness as we do. Is there a statement behind the question? >> Jesus also drew many analogies with human life from >> nature, nevertheless He put man on a different footing than anything else in >> creation. For example (Matthew 10:29-31) >> >> "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on >> the ground without your Father ... >> >> "Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." > Ecclesiastes 4: 18-21 > > "I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so they they may see that they > are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate > awaits them both: As one dies, so does the other. All have the same > breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. > All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who > knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes > down into the earth?" In my very pedestrian understanding of Ecclesiastes, it seems to me the author is using another example of how transitory one life is. We will lose all earthly things we vainly strive for - and in this respect share the same fate as animals. "All is vanity and vexation of spirit." Are you interpreting it differently? Please say more. >> It really boils down to how God can give us free will, but nevertheless >> keep us from using that free will to permanently get on the wrong track. >> Though it looks ridiculously simple, the answer is: karma! > Karma, in a way, has negated the need for God. Karma takes the place of > God, performs all justice, offers all reward. What is God's role as long as > karma rules? There is more to life than karma. God is certainly large enough to contain the law of sowing and reaping - and then some. There are "gifts" from God that we certainly haven't fully earned, but receive out of His Love. Kind of like a parent asking that a child earn some money, but then giving double what the child earns once he has shown he is responsible. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 21:18:09 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Ahh ... choo! Message-ID: <32D47EE8.73EF@withoutwalls.com> >Please! Mark! May I borrow this? :-) >Kym Borrow away, Milady! Liked that one, eh? ... I got a million of 'em! Ahhh ....choooooooooooo :-) 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: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 01:03:58 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <970109010357_1417132662@emout05.mail.aol.com> Alan, Uh, cornish hens..... Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 22:11:01 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Justice and Love Message-ID: <199701090611.WAA04972@palrel1.hp.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > Jesus said, "you have heard that it was said by them of old, 'an eye for an > eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'love your enemies.'" Did > he mean to do away with justice and replace it with love, or might he have > meant to balance the two? Shouldn't love for others be balanced with > standing up for one's own rights, or is it never right to be selfish in that > way? If love should rule over justice, does that mean that we should let > others take advantage of us and trust that justice is inevitable? Isn't > revenge based on the quest for justice, and yet isn't it also the antithesis > of love? Does forgiveness mean being a doormat? I think Jesus was speaking about vengeance versus love, not justice versus love. Vengeance and justice are not the same. You can make a stand and say something is wrong while being forgiving. Forgiveness means not holding on to the hurt. Not condoning is different from condemning. I agree with Liesel's quote of MLK (paraphrased) "Hate the sin, but not the sinner." This doesn't mean you can't be severe. When Jesus drove out the money changers and chased them with a flail, He was severe. He did not say, "Gee, I think you are wrong. Please stop it." Even so, His anger was not directed to the persons - only their deeds. For an excellent book on love with strictness, read "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yogananda. His guru was pretty stern, but not abusive. Theosophical literature suggests Master M's style was stern, while the style of Master K.H. was more mild. Both work if done rightly. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 23:59:55 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > >So then, to be "open-minded" you questioned someone guaranteed to give >>the official party line ... > > I agree. Willamay would never put truth ahead of making herself look good. Implying, then, that I would? Of course John Algeo would never put truth ahead of making himself look good either. In fact, it is surely the case that absolutely no one on the Board that sued the Lodge would do so, while all those critics of the Board's action naturally all do so. You are either a mouthpiece of the Board, or almost hopelessly naive if you don't believe power plays go on in the TS Offices. > > >and then apparently decide that because I like a > >person you've fought with, that is the foundation upon which to decide > >which person to believe. Gee ... that's pretty "rational" bucko. > > For the degree that I care about what happened with the Boston Lodge, it > was reasonable. I believe Willamay is honest, and I have already seen how > honest you are. Oh, yes, I forgot, your definition of "honest" is "someone who agrees with me". By that definition, you are right, I'm *terribly* dishonest - and proudly so. In the real world outside of your own head, a couple different organizations trust me to invest considerable amounts of their money ... suprisingly enough because I have a reputation for a character incapable of lying about a single cent. Poor deluded fools. > It is illogical to conclude that your liking as > untheosophical a character as Alexis is the "foundation" of my trusting > Willamay more than I trust you. Does the concept "strawman" mean anything > to you? Hhhmmmmm, again your somewhat creative grasp of the word "illogical". When someone makes the statement that they will take her word over the word of someone who likes Alexis - that is, offers it as the sole reason for his choice between two different perspectives - what *is* it logical to conclude ... that you have some other reason or reasons that we are all supposed to guess about? If not Alexis, then what criteria did you use to judge "trustworthiness". You might notice that while I stated my opinion and Willamay stated hers - I also did not ask you to take my word for it, but invited you to examine various points of view, to examine the archives of this list (where can be found various perspectives ... those agreeing with mine and those arguing against it). Let me ask you, did she? Did she point you to information that would argue against her perspective as well as on its behalf? Or did she ridicule the thought that any perspective other than the board position (which is what you heard from her) even had any credence? > >You want > >to delibrately goad and disparege people? Fine ... I'll play with you. > > Now look who's complaining about being attacked, after equating any mention > by me of being attacked with selfish self-pity. Does the word "hypocrisy" > mean anything to you? Oh my dear boy I'm not complaining at all! You are outright *fun* to play with. In the statement about Alexis you most definately made a dispareging remark about me ... not only that, but implied my character itself, as evidenced by the terrible sin of liking another *Theosophist*, was untrustworthy (oh, I forgot, Alexis does not come up to your standards of what a Theosophist ought to be). But I most certainly did not complain about it ... on the contrary, I said I'd play - respond to you in precisely the same tone. You, who have continually accused people of delibrately misinterpreting your words - clealy have now superimposed your own meaning onto mine. Does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you? > >You > >are sitting here on some high horse, talking almost continually down to > >people, attacking them for not responding to you "rationally", while > >offering little other than freshman logic and unsupported statements. > > If you are criticizing me for making assertions without necessarily showing > the logic behind them, what do you think of this last sentence of yours? > Would you call it "rational?" I've never claimed - as you have - that all my statements are rational ... I've done too much actual science to have as blind a belief in logic as you do. But yes, that last sentence is "rational". You have on a number of occaisions made strong assertions with absolutely no evidence, seem to confuse strength of statement with validity, and have continually used what *is* freshman logic. You want examples? You made a statement some time ago about most women in a marriage wanting men to show "leadership". When someone replied by saying you could not possibly know this, you replied with a high school statistics lecture, patiently explaining that the behaviour of a larger group could be predicted from a sample set. At which point myself and several others, on several different occaisions, asked to *see* your sample set - asked to see *any* credible poll or survey done by anyone that actually *supported* your statement. To this day you have not. You made, then, an *unsupported statement*. This is simply one example of many. > >You want to do an *OBJECTIVE* examination of the situation? No, I don't > >think so - it appears as though you simply wanted to take a quick shot at > >me ... > > A little while ago, you were implying that there is nothing wrong with > "taking shots" at people. Could the difference now merely be who is the > object of the "shot?" Once you have been on this list long enough, you > will see such "shots" as serving the constructive purpose of clarifying > your thought, and you will learn to appreciate your spiritual allies. > Taking them personally only clouds your judgment. Is asking me a question, > and then immediately answering it open-minded? Er, once again ... precisely where did I say you were doing anything wrong? I was simply stating that while the post was presenting itself as though you were presenting the conclusion of an investigation into the Boston situation, it did not seem as though your real intent was to do an actual investigation, but rather simply to take a shot at me. I did not say you shouldn't - and while I meant what I said about spiritual allies ... unfortunately you simply don't fit the bill, as your particular opinions of me simply don't matter. I fight real battles in my life, those I care about, and those matter ... but you are just an intellectual infant its fun to play with now and then - and you've been helpful in that you've allowed re-introduction of a topic - the Boston Lodge - that I think it is good to remind people of now and then .... most of the rest of the Society knew *nothing* about the situation, or even that there was a situation to know about ... and HQ certainly didn't (and still doesn't) want it to be a topic in the Society. I would invite you to continue this conversation for awhile. It may or may not occured to you that whether or not *you* become convinced of anything, whether you call me a "hypocrite", or a "liar", or "untheosophical", or whether you believe the behaviour of HQ was perfectly innocent makes little difference to me, as I am not writing to you anyway. Now and then newcomers enter the list - in fact the list has lately grown - and I personally, for what *I* consider to be the good of Theosophy, believe those who are interested should become aware of the boston situation, the considerable discussions concerning it that went on on this list, and what many besides me consider to be highly questionable behaviour on the part of HQ ... the same HQ that has made sure that other than those directly involved, and the people on this list, virtually no one in the TS is even aware that HQ brought legal action against an old and large Lodge. And in fact if the entire TS *had* heard all sides of the discussion - had seen what was discussed on this list, the Bylaw vote might have been much different. So go ahead and take all the shots you want ... not only won't I complain, I'll invite you to do so! But no matter what you do there are probably now a few newcomers who, as was the case with me, knew nothing about the Boston situation and now understand something significant happened, that may read the archives even if you didn't, who may try to fully investigate the situation even if you don't. This, I think, is *good* ... what was that motto about "truth" or something ...? And the little attacks just make the reading more interesting. But you rather overestimate the importance of your opinion of me if you believe they matter personally. I've been involved in issues dealing with both state and federal politics, and *those* boys and girls know how to play hard ball ... your little sniping barely even appears on my radar screen, save as a means of furthering my purposes. > >as an *OBJECTIVE* examination would be to > > > >1. Approach the subject *assuming you did not know the answer*. > > It is your prejudice that portrays me as assuming I already knew the > answer. For all I know, Willamay could be a pathological liar. You are > prejudicially assuming that any conclusion I come to is prejudiced. I call > assuming that others have one's own faults "projection." No, it was not my prejudice, it was your words. The Board of the TS was charged with behaving in a particular way. You said you doubted it was the case ... and then went and asked a person that, whether trustworthy or not, could be depended upon to give you one point of view - the point of view of the Board. You asked no one else, including even one person the Board (Willamay included) charged with threatening to "take over" TS assets. In your own words you stated that you doubted the Board had done what they had been accused of, and by your own words told us that you went to Willamay, and quite naturally were confirmed in your belief. To point out that, by your own statements, you did not even bother to gather anywhere close to enough information to come to *any* conclusion one way or another, but nonetheless not only came to a conclusion, but concluded the identical thing that you said you believed before your "investigation" is not a "projection". For you to believe I was prejudiced against any conclusion you would come to, might be. > > >2. To *investigate all points of view* - gathering data - conflicting > >though it might be - from *all* the relevent sources. > >3. Form a couple of hypotheses for testing. > >4. Create tests that would confirm or disprove one or more of them. > >5. Come to a conclusion based on analysis - and assign a relative > >likelihood to the truth of the conclusion. > > If one person told you that female praying mantids eat their mates after > mating, and another person said they didn't, and it didn't make a > significant difference to you, to what lengths would go to get data from > "all" the relevant sources? Or, if you considered one source more reliable > than the other, might you simply decide that your limited desire to know > the truth about the mantids does not justify any further study, and, for > what it's worth, you will accept, on faith, the conclusion of the one in > whom you have the most faith? Certainly, except this example varies considerably from the current situation. Let's make it a bit more accurate - let's say that the argument was not taking place in abstract space, let's say that the two members were part of an organization of professional biologists. That considerable amounts of the organization's moneys were involved in the dispute. That the one in whom you have "the most faith" also happened to be a member of the ruling Board of the Society, a Board that, without consulting or even informing its membership decided on behalf of the whole organization to declare that the mantids don't eat their mates - and shortly thereafter passed a Bylaw that permits it to decide any other such arguments in the future - again without informing or consulting with the membership. Of course it also must be asked whether, given *this* situation, not only whether I would take one person's word over the other's, but whether I would go further ... and not only come to a conclusion I already stated I didn't care enough about to even pretend to do an actual investigation, but then take that conclusion and state it publically ... clearly coming down on one side of the issue. What your opinion is of me hardly matters - but what you have also done, not in accepting Willamay's explanation but in publically saying her point of view is correct, is also slammed those Theosophists who were *accused* by HQ, for the purposes of its activities, of threatening to sieze property for their own personal gain. These are people you do not even know, did not bother to question, and a couple of whom came on this list to vehemently deny any such intentions - some of whom were deeply committed Theosophists, and every bit as "trustworthy" as Willamay Pym. Of *course* the Board members feel they did nothing wrong - feel they were justified in their actions ... but the people they accused also feel they did nothing wrong, were being wrongly accused, and did *not* feel that HQ was justified in siezing control of assets. It would seem as though if you really didn't care enough to do an adequate investigation, you would have just kept your mouth shut - but *if* you were going to take one side of the situation, a side that justified its actions by *accusing* other Theosophists of bad intentions - that you at least owed those others the effort of hearing their side. > > >Maybe you should look at the archives of this list - there was an > >*extensive* discussion of the matter here ... with perspectives from all > >sides presented ... not just the HQ point of view, but also the points of > >view of a number of people personally involved on both sides of the > >battle. > > Maybe. I want to be open-minded to all possibilities. Before you speak another word about your "conclusions" I would *really* hope that you would. If you don't care about it enough to do so, I hope you remain silent - because for some of your brother and sister Theosophists, it is *very* important ... their characters and intentions were accused by HQ, and some of them are still deeply and personally wounded from the situation. > > >It is a *fact* that the Lodge is now much smaller ... > >and that a group of people that left ... who HQ claimed were threatening > >to "sieze the assets of the Lodge" just happened to be also Alice Bailey > >afficianados. > > Then, as you implied, they must have been sued _because_ they studied Alice > Bailey. I stand corrected. Then, as you implied, because Willamay said it wasn't so, it _must_ not be. I stand corrected. > > >And one of the members of the Lodge that was one of those > >that lost to Wheaton expressed just as much suprise that anyone was > >thinking of "taking over" the assets of the Lodge ... in fact the guy was > >absolutely *livid* that such charges were being made > > O. J. was "livid" that he was charged with murder.. You seem to be "livid" > that I consider you and Alexis to be hypocrites in going by the name > "Theosophist." This may be another one of your "projections". You discredited yourself in my eyes after your third post - and I consider it quite an honorable distinction to be one of those many you consider to be "hypocrites". You can hardly make me "livid" - in fact you usually make me laugh. But where is the "hypocrisy" here? You have just implied that people you don't even know, whose points of view you did not even bother to hear, are *guilty*. This, then, is your definition of acting "theosophically"? I'm quite *proud* not to be your "kind" of Theosophist. > >The situation was quite > >complex ... but *HQ* instituted court proceedings ... and considerable > >moneys were spent on legal bills > > Willamay ridiculed the idea that half a million dollars were spent on legal > fees. On that basis alone, without any further investigation (since that > is how I believe all investigations should be done, anyway), I will give > you two to one odds, on any amount you want to bet up to $10,000, that the > amount spent on legal fees was less than, oh, say, $300,000. Perhaps you could get Willamay to come clean about the entire money trail in the situation. Certainly those who have attempted to investigate it - including lawyers and accountants fully capable of understanding financial information - have been met with quite a brick wall. > > >Perhaps you've been reading Liesel's posts - a woman with the balance and > >experience of age that Willamay has ... that has been a strong supporter > >of John Algeo in the past ... and who (since this is apparently your > >standard for judging validity) had *terrible* fights with Alexis > > I bet she started them, too. Alexis is quite the peacemaker. His skills almost equal yours. > > >Now let *me* see, who should I believe? A dozen different people, > >both supporters and critics of HQ, who were deeply involved in either the > >day to day unfolding of the situation itself or in attempts to pursue in > >depth investigations of it ... or a man whose idea of investigation is to > >ask one person ... who was herself part of the Board that instituted the > >action in the first place ... and accept her word at face value as being > >the truth of the entire situation? Gee, that's a close one. > > Your dishonesty in willing to blatantly mischaracterize what people say is > glaring through, yet again. I never said that I accepted her word at face > value as being the truth of the "entire" situation. Rather than claiming > to have "investigated" it, I have explicitly said that I hardly care about > it. You are adding to my relative confidence in her, since I have known > her much longer than I have you, and she has never gone this far out of her > way to lie about what I said. Ah yes, the "liar, liar, pants on fire" claim - I remember that from grade school - I almost thought you were going to get through an entire post without using it. How disappointing that would have been. How do you even get through your days with so many people so constantly mischaracterizing and lying about you? > > >On the bright > >side, your love of authority and willingness to come to a conclusion about > >a several year complex situation based on complete belief in a statement > >by one person, who could be depended upon to speak the party line, makes > >you a good candidate for TS leadership. You're exactly the sort that will > >probably be "invited" to offer your name for a board position a few years > >from now - and if some malcontent is running against you? Don't worry! A > >"speaking tour" will be conveniently arranged that has you (in a > >delightfully fortuitious coincidence) visit most main Lodges in your > >region within a few months of the election. > > Sometimes the end justifies the means. Are you open-minded to that > possibility? > Yes! In fact behind the scenes there are discussions going on between a number of past and present Theosophists whom - being left no choice - have begun to plan the means by which to remove the current little ruling faction from power, as the objective evidence is that both in terms of finance and membership the TS, under its current leadership, is in a downward slide. Of course, since you have no problem with HQ using its authority to further its perspective, you will also be "open-minded" enough to see that authority used to further a perspective that you may not as fully agree with, won't you? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 02:00:01 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma (Re-submission) Message-ID: <970109010258_1857073817@emout20.mail.aol.com> Alan, It's precisely because the incompetant god guy doesn't notice that we do. As Mark Twain pointed out, people are better than their god. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 9 03:46:31 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <199701090846.DAA18407@envirolink.org> Bart Lidofsky writes: >John Straughn wrote: > >> Oh yeah, and if you can convince the masses to do the same, a different >>method of learning may evolve. Who knows? > > Excellent try, by the way. > > Bart Lidofsky I'm sure there is a way to do it, I just need Tom to remind me how... Platonically: --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 9 04:52:34 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701090952.EAA21367@envirolink.org> Titus Roth writes: >>> Titus wrote > >> and kymsmith@micron.net responded: > > >>> True in a sense. But on grand time scales, I think human beings *are* an >>> exception. Man, having consciousness, has a different destiny than >>>mineral, plant or animal life. > >> A different destiny? How many different destinies are there? > >I don't think, for example, that a plant reincarnates and will become more >conscious. That's one difference in destiny. Animals are invaluable supports >to man and may reincarnate, but I don't think they will evolve in >consciousness as we do. Is there a statement behind the question? Well, one *could* think of it in this way. That it is not so much a question of consciousness as self-consciousness that we evolve. Our ability to say "I am" has to be developed. It can't just appear out of nowhere. I suppose it *could*, but logically I'd have to assume that it doesn't happen that way. Theosophically, as I understand it, every atom in existence innately desires self-consciousness and pure spirituality. These atoms would probably be considered the minerals and elements. One of the first things they need to experience in order to have saelf-consciousness is a uniqueness among others. Hence plant-life. The monads, between root-races and rounds, "change" themselves by their innate, yet still unconscious wills (swabhavas), into the most simple life form, i.e. unique form. Like humans, I don't think you can ever have two plants that look exactly the same, grow at the same rate, or produce the same amount of fruit or whatever. Each one of them has a unique pattern. The atomic elements show proise of having a unique pattern as well in regards to the boson. (proton) One can split the boson of a proton, shattering it, and it will reconstruct itself, retrieve the scattered particles, "remember" where they go, and get them back in place, totally reconstructing the proton. So there is uniqueness on the subatomic level as well. But anywho... Plants are most definitely unique. They have individual characteristics, or are starting to show them at this stage, but they are in stasis. They don't have a lot to do. They have fewer senses than do the animals and man. They cannot see, or hear, or taste, or smell as we do, but I believe they do have senses which we cannot comprehend as of yet. Nevertheless, throughout their lives, their experience is pretty much the same. One place, same scenery, same "whatever" that they sense if they sense anything. (Which they most likely do.) So the next thing the monad wants to do innately and unconsciously, is to get more expewriences out of its life. To gain even more individuality. To get five senses instead of one or two. To see things. To hear things, smell them taste them and feel them. Then, not only are there more experiences but it asdds to the variety of different ones that each animal can have. They have true individuality. They can set themselves apart from others. They almost have the ability to say "I am" I've always thought it somewhat poetic that when an animal is dying, one of the last things it might say to itself is, "I don't want this to happen to me. I don't want to die." It is the point when an animal realizes that it is an individual. So when that monad is in its fourth round(actually right before it) it can say to itself "I am" And from itself will come the "I am I", the human ego. Which eventually manifests itself as the human being. What it comes down to, as I understand, is that the sole purpose of all the rounds and root races is simply to develop a self-conscious monad, which can only be done through matter, for only senses and experience lead to individualism, hence the "descent". >In my very pedestrian understanding of Ecclesiastes, it seems to me the >authoris using another example of how transitory one life is. We will lose >allearthly things we vainly strive for - and in this respect share the same >fateas animals. "All is vanity and vexation of spirit." Are you interpreting >itdifferently? Please say more. > >>> It really boils down to how God can give us free will, but nevertheless >>> keep us from using that free will to permanently get on the wrong track. >>> Though it looks ridiculously simple, the answer is: karma! > >> Karma, in a way, has negated the need for God. Karma takes the place of >> God, performs all justice, offers all reward. What is God's role as long >>as karma rules? I really don't think free will was so much "given" as discovered, like mathematical theorems(sp?). We have always had will throughout our existence as monads and animals and plants, but I think free will actually camesomewhere during the animal stage. Perhaps in higher root-races. Don't really know. Perhaps free will is the same as saying self-consciously directed will. In other words, it's the same will that we have had since the beginning of the manvantara, only we recognize ourselves and our wills and can now control them. I can agree that God gave us free will only by defining God as the Wonderous Being (the great banyan) from which we came and of which we are, and by saying that, as a part of that being we have a will as well. >There is more to life than karma. God is certainly large enough to contain >thelaw of sowing and reaping - and then some. There are "gifts" from God >that wecertainly haven't fully earned, but receive out of His Love. Kind of >like aparent asking that a child earn some money, but then giving double >what thechild earns once he has shown he is responsible. I agree that there is more to life than karma. If Gautama Buddha can get away with being immune to karma why can't I? I also understand how you are trying to compare "gifts from God" to the love and method of reward to a child from a parent. However, I can't entirely agree with it. I don't really totally understand the analogy. What are some examples of the gifts to which you are referring? Are they only explainable as gifts from God? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:24:56 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Christmas Eve communion Message-ID: <970109010019_678991631@emout02.mail.aol.com> Paul, I'm becoming of the opinion that when one finds oneself around those who proclaim universal brotherhood it is best to sit with one's back to the wall. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 07:37:46 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32f29e89.8999571@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 9 Jan 97 07:09:50 +0000, JRC wrote: >On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: >> Willamay ridiculed the idea that half a million dollars were spent on legal >> fees. On that basis alone, without any further investigation (since that >> is how I believe all investigations should be done, anyway), I will give >> you two to one odds, on any amount you want to bet up to $10,000, that >>the amount spent on legal fees was less than, oh, say, $300,000. > Perhaps you could get Willamay to come clean about the entire >money trail in the situation. Certainly those who have attempted to >investigate it - including lawyers and accountants fully capable of >understanding financial information - have been met with quite a brick >wall. I am not about to read 336 lines of your personal vendetta. I just wanted to see how you responded to my business offer. First you say that the TS spent half a million dollars suing the Boston Lodge because discussing Alice Bailey was forbidden. Then, in demonstrating the connection between the lawsuit and their discussing Alice Bailey, all you say is that they discussed Alice Bailey and were sued over a property dispute. Then, when confronted with a chance to make some money if the half a million dollar figure were true, the best you can do is ask me how much money was spent on it. If anyone has any reason to consider your credibility to be more than negligible, I would love to hear why. Maybe Alexis will vouch for you. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 09:12:02 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > On Thu, 9 Jan 97 07:09:50 +0000, JRC wrote: > > >On Wed, 8 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > >> Willamay ridiculed the idea that half a million dollars were spent on legal > >> fees. On that basis alone, without any further investigation (since that > >> is how I believe all investigations should be done, anyway), I will give > >> you two to one odds, on any amount you want to bet up to $10,000, that >>the amount spent on legal fees was less than, oh, say, $300,000. > > > Perhaps you could get Willamay to come clean about the entire > >money trail in the situation. Certainly those who have attempted to > >investigate it - including lawyers and accountants fully capable of > >understanding financial information - have been met with quite a brick > >wall. > > I am not about to read 336 lines of your personal vendetta. I just wanted > to see how you responded to my business offer. First you say that the TS > spent half a million dollars suing the Boston Lodge because discussing > Alice Bailey was forbidden. Then, in demonstrating the connection between > the lawsuit and their discussing Alice Bailey, all you say is that they > discussed Alice Bailey and were sued over a property dispute. Then, when > confronted with a chance to make some money if the half a million dollar > figure were true, the best you can do is ask me how much money was spent on > it. If anyone has any reason to consider your credibility to be more than > negligible, I would love to hear why. Maybe Alexis will vouch for you. > Let me add my 2 cents worth. About a year ago, I did make a formal request to Wheaton requesting factual information on both Boston Lodge and what led to cancellation of the Charters in Denmark and other places. I have the request in my files. Till today I have not yet received any response. I will post the message later today. Readers can come to their own conclusions based on the facts that was presented in theos-l several months ago and also the above non response. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 08:13:36 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > Perhaps you could get Willamay to come clean about the entire > >money trail in the situation. Certainly those who have attempted to > >investigate it - including lawyers and accountants fully capable of > >understanding financial information - have been met with quite a brick > >wall. > > I am not about to read 336 lines of your personal vendetta. I just wanted > to see how you responded to my business offer. First you say that the TS > spent half a million dollars suing the Boston Lodge because discussing > Alice Bailey was forbidden. Then, in demonstrating the connection between > the lawsuit and their discussing Alice Bailey, all you say is that they > discussed Alice Bailey and were sued over a property dispute. Then, when > confronted with a chance to make some money if the half a million dollar > figure were true, the best you can do is ask me how much money was spent on > it. If anyone has any reason to consider your credibility to be more than > negligible, I would love to hear why. Maybe Alexis will vouch for you. > Oh, I see, so you wrote delibrately to destroy my credibility. Gee Tom, that's mighty "theosophical" of you. Oh, by the way a good number of those "366" lines were lines written by you that I was replying to - my response to your personal vendetta. Apparently when confronted by your own face in a mirror, you storm off in a snit and refuse to answer. What fun! And I suspect my credibility is just fine ... especially among those that *did* take the trouble to investigate the situation before forming an opinion. While my intention has been to raise the issue of the HQ activities in relation to the Boston Lodge, I fear as a side effect your "credibility" may have been damaged somewhat. You came down on one side of a dispute - a side that accused a number of Theosophists of bad intentions - and did not first even try to talk to them. But perhaps the Board will "vouch" for you, they've been in need of a mouthpiece, and will, I'm sure, reward one. But I don't want to go on too long here. Tell you what, since you think the tactic of "I'll bet ya" is actually an intellectual argument ... I'll happily talk about the terms and definitions of how much was "spent" on the whole fiasco after you accept *my* wager ... I'll bet you any money you wish that Headquarters will not make a presentation, in the American Theosophist, of their side of the story, their reasoning, accusations, and a complete and verifiable accounting of the costs of their actions, and allow equal space for a response from those they accused, and whose Lodge is to this day badly damaged. But I'll keep this personal vendetta short, as it is a response to a short one from you. Tally Ho, JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 9 10:26:37 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Christmas Eve communion Message-ID: <199701091526.KAA08698@envirolink.org> Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >Paul, >I'm becoming of the opinion that when one finds oneself around those who >proclaim universal brotherhood it is best to sit with one's back to the wall. > >Chuck the Heretic Follow those who seek the truth, and run from those who find it. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 11:31:11 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Ad hominem attacks Message-ID: <199701091631.LAA11451@leo.vsla.edu> Two people have accused me of making ad hominem attacks on Daniel Caldwell, as a result of my stating that a rigid belief system motivated his attacks on my work. The argument is that I should respond in substantive detail to his attacks on my work. In fact I have done so at great length, and said so in the post in question. That it has not appeared on Dr. Lane's website weeks after my sending it is due to technical delays, not reluctance on my part. What I said, and readers of the reply will be able to confirm, is that analysis of Mr. Caldwell's arguments shows a rigid belief system to underly them. That is enough said on the matter. When the response is available the evidence on this score will be seen to be quite abundant. JHE makes public reference to a private matter which I suspect the persons named in his post would wish to remain so. Since this is the second time he has brought it up on one of these lists, I feel obliged to explain what is going on. In short, two friends unacquainted with each other both told me that JHE was saying behind my back "People shouldn't read The Masters Revealed" (or, to specific people, "You shouldn't read it") at the same time that to my face he was acting neutral and interested in friendly relations. When I confronted JHE about this he vociferously denied it. I told one of the people immediately that I had quoted him to Jerry, and he was not happy with this. He admitted then (which he had not implied before) that he couldn't remember whether he had actually heard JHE say this or whether it had been reported to him. Jerry confronted this friend about the story, denying it and asking whether or not he had really said it. (Rather, implying that I had imagined it or made it up, and seeking confirmation of this.) In his answer to JHE he was evasive enough that (in his own words to me at the time) "Jerry could read into it what he wanted to." But he certainly didn't deny to Jerry what he'd told me, simply said the details of the conversation eluded him. As for John Coker and Brett Forray, named in JHE's post: John told me in great detail about his efforts to get Brett to read my book, and that Brett kept saying "Jerry says don't read it" or "Jerry says no one should read it" or some such thing. After my confrontation with JHE on the matter, I apologized to John for quoting him to that effect, to which he replied "I don't care, I'll tell him to his face." If John is now denying the whole story, I'm astonished-- and will check to see what is going on. Q. What do JHE, Daniel Caldwell, and John Algeo have in common? A. They are all people whose friendship I tried hard to secure or maintain, who are thanked for small favors in the acknowledgments of my last book, received free copies of both of them, and have become implacable enemies for reasons that I think have more to do with their belief systems than with me. There is something incredibly frustrating about people who give abundant evidence of enmity, but when confronted about it say "You're paranoid" and then use the alleged paranoia to *further* attack you. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 11:42:32 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Shadows and light in Christianity Message-ID: <199701091642.LAA13116@leo.vsla.edu> JRC is quite right that comparing Christianity at its best to Theosophy at its worst is not fair. But it does balance the tendency of Theosophists to do the opposite, which I did for years. Whatever the overall balance of light and shadow in Christianity, though, it is the Methodists that I abandoned in adolescence for greener fields, and that particular branch of Christianity shows more intellectual flexibility and openness to new ideas than any of the non-Christian groups I've explored. Plus doing better at the warm and fuzzy stuff. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:48:03 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Christmas Eve communion Message-ID: <199701091749.MAA16398@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Dr. A.M.Bain > > In message <199701082015.PAA14255@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" > writes > >And then, in this service in the old > >home town church I'd shunned for most of my life, I *got it* in > >a way that had eluded me before. Partly it may have been the > >minister's eloquence, but mostly my own attitude had changed. > >What became so abundantly clear is that this experience was > >really not at all about some dogma concerning the death of > >Jesus and its effects on our own route to heaven. It was > >quite transparently a joyous celebration of the universal > >siblinghood of humanity as reflected in that microcosm. > > As a very EX-bishop, I follow your thought very well. Deep study of > relgion and theology led me to dump Jesus and the HE-God. > Experimentation showed, however, that the communion, if properly done, > works very well without them ... As I understand (or remember it), it also worked quite well for the priestesses of Isis, way before that Jesus guy you dumped and of course, with the help of a She-god, Isis. -AEB > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 18:53:03 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Personal survival Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970109175303.006d9d10@xs4all.nl> Triaist wrote: > >I'm not sure how often this topic comes up on this list, but I haven't seen it >on here in the four or five months that I've been on, so here goes. I have a >few questions about the different theories of the people on this list as far >as what takes place during the "death". and: >The type of NDE's I am referring to are the ones where people believe that >they have "seen and spoken to God". some after a tunnel, some not. I was >wondering if anyone has some speculation on what the image of the tunnel >actually is, whether it be nomenal or phenomenal, or simply an overactive >imagination. I have devoted quite a few pages on my site to the personal survival problem and more in my book "Dood geen Einde" (Death no End) , particularly the Spiritualists' point of view. It is my opinion that Theosophists should acquaint themselves far more with mediumistic phenomena because from that stable came the movement but severed its connections for various reasons, although HPB continued to act as a medium. For me the clue to the communications of the Masters lies in similar inspired writings (Old Testament). Communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite a solid appearance. I have given an example in my summary of the "Philip" experiments by Canadian parapsycholgists (see my page on the "presence phenomenon") of a product of fantasy being evoked which made itself physically known. As to NDE's there are two camps now. The rational explanation connecting all experiences to a dramatization of brain death processes on account of lack of oxygen, versus those of insiders who give it a spiritualist explanation based on their own experiences of stories of thousands of patients. As to my self I believe both parties may have a bit of the truth. It is obvious that dramatization plays a part specifically the heavenly figures seen later who vary according to belief. In my opinion it goes too far to dismiss all, considering the great impact the experience makes on patients which cannot be explaned by mere dramatization. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 18:53:12 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Motherboard battery Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970109175312.00699488@xs4all.nl> Re Ramadoss' experience with his motherboard: there are many of them who have an extra socket to power the clock in case the battery succumbs. An outside battery (even penlites) may be connected to that socket after one has changed a dip-switch (see manual) Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:29:23 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Post-Christian era? Message-ID: <199701091829.KAA08640@proxy2.ba.best.com> >1.3 billion believers make Christianity still by far the >largest world religion, and more importantly it has has the >greatest internal diversity with more than a thousand >different varieties. Paul, The point of whether Christianity is a dominant religion or not is moot, considering that one of the fact that Christianity became widespread is through force and conquering of other nations. The French dominated over the Vietnamese, the British dominated over the Indians (became Australians and dominated over the Australian Aborigines, became Americans and dominated over native American Indians, Americans also brought slaves to America and converted them, too, became New Zealanders and....), etc. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? The point that Christianity is more widespread than, say, native North American Indian beliefs or Australian Aboriginal beliefs, does not mean that this belief is better than the more obscure ones. In fact, its patriarchal system have encouraged suppression of women, moralistic control, and power plays. I agree with JRC that you are comparing the highlights of one with the shadow of another. At any rate, it's good to go where your faith is at the moment. You obviously have felt many dissatisfactions under the Theosophy and the Baha'i groups, and you should go where you are satisfied. The important thing is not which organization you are under, but that you keep the faith. All religions have done some bad and good, although I can't recall any injustices committed under Buddhism. I myself don't belong to any group, and am starting to like it that way. It's good to know others, though, who are into enlightening themselves, and compare that nugget of truth with them. I usually look at any belief, take what I like and leave what I don't like. I hope that you will find what you are looking for, as we are all searching. Namaste, TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 14:04:02 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: JRC's credibility Message-ID: <199701091904.OAA00849@leo.vsla.edu> Tom Robertson writes that "If anyone has any reason to consider your [JRC's] credibility to be more than negligible, I would love to hear why." OK: On any subject related to TSA affairs I've ever seen him discuss, JRC's comments have been well-founded in observations and he can back up his judgments with details. He has been consistently insightful about how the TSA operates and why, in ways that cause me to have "Aha" reactions where formerly I was totally confused. No one to my knowledge has ever caught him in a factual error on these subjects. He has been attentive to all evidence presented from any source. His conclusions about the Boston lodge affair are based, in addition to his own insights into Wheaton, on research done by Sy Ginsburg who actually went to the Boston area to interview people. Rich Taylor, a Theosophical conservative who is poles apart from JRC on doctrinal matters, was present at the Boston imbroglio, and backed up what Sy reported. NOTE-- Rich is an HPB Theosophist who deplored the Baileyite emphasis of many people in the lodge but STILL considered Wheaton's comments on the matter to be grotesquely unfair and inaccurate. The actual dollar amount spent on lawyers was slightly short of $500000, as reported by Sy and Rich; all this is in the theos-l archives for the period leading up to the ballot on by-laws changes. That's a brief effort at a reply to your presumably rhetorical challenge. Do you love it, as you said you would? I've met Willamay a couple of times and she does indeed seem to be a very likeable and honorable person. So do the other board members I've met. But even the finest of people can get caught up in groupthink and fail to examine evidence that conflicts with what they are being fed by those who control the information flow. Since a board member was one of the major players in this affair, there was an imbalance from the beginning in the likelihood that both sides would be heard. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:08:02 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks Message-ID: <199701091908.MAA11391@mailhost.azstarnet.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: >Two people have accused me of making ad hominem attacks on >Daniel Caldwell, as a result of my stating that a rigid belief >system motivated his attacks on my work. The argument is that >I should respond in substantive detail to his attacks on my >work. In fact I have done so at great length, and said so in >the post in question. That it has not appeared on Dr. Lane's >website weeks after my sending it is due to technical delays, >not reluctance on my part. What I said, and readers of the >reply will be able to confirm, is that analysis of Mr. >Caldwell's arguments shows a rigid belief system to underly >them. That is enough said on the matter. When the response >is available the evidence on this score will be seen to be >quite abundant. >Q. What do JHE, Daniel Caldwell, and John Algeo have in common? >A. They are all people whose friendship I tried hard to secure or >maintain, who are thanked for small favors in the acknowledgments of >my last book, received free copies of both of them, and have >become implacable enemies for reasons that I think have more to >do with their belief systems than with me. > >There is something incredibly frustrating about people who give >abundant evidence of enmity, but when confronted about it say >"You're paranoid" and then use the alleged paranoia to *further* >attack you. Daniel Caldwell replies: Notice how Johnson refers to me, JHE and John Algeo: "implacable enemies" ......." people who give abundant evidence of enmity" and in his reference to my critique Johnson refers to "my attacks" on his books. He appears to be the one who wants to create an "us versus them" situation. I don't consider myself Johnson's enemy but he must consider me" his" enemy. I have nothing against Johnson personally but I do question some of his research and his conclusions on the two Masters M and KH. Yes, I have been upfront in my criticisms and I have been frank and honest in my opinions on some of his research. Yes, I believe some of his research has been less than accurate, etc. but I have also criticized the research of other Theosophical writers such as Jean Overton Fuller, Boris de Zirkoff, Geoffrey Barborka, etc. Johnson even wrote to me in 1993 and said he appreciated my razor blade critique of some of Fuller's research on HPB. I wouldn't mind being Johnson's friend but IF to be his friend, I had to be all nice smiles and refrain from telling him what I honestly thought of some of his research and conclusions, then it would probably be better not to be his friend. I don't always agree with what John Crocker writes on Theos-l but I do admire his frank outspoken way of writing. I wonder how Johnson would react if he and Crocker ever got on opposite sides of an issue and in a heated argument? : ) Yes, I do have beliefs, doesn't Johnson? But I think the attentive reader of my critique will see issues that have nothing to do with me personally or with Johnson personally. The issues are bigger than both of us and will still be around when we are both dead. Erase Caldwell and Johnson from the equation and look at Johnson's CONJECTURES on M and KH and the ARGUMENTS in my critique. Does it really matter who came up with these hypotheses on M and KH? Does it really matter who wrote the critique on Johnson's hypotheses? The seeker of truth, the dispassioned scholar, etc. will look at the issues and forget the two people who wrote the material. I will see how Johnson responds to my critique but I do believe that all this reference to my "rigid" belief system is a smokescreen to distract from the real issues involved. Why has Johnson decided not to deal exclusively with the issues raised but to also muddle around with my supposed "rigid" adherence to some belief system? I bet Johnson would cry "foul" if someone was to attack his books and also attempt to psychoanlyze his personality, his belief system, etc.? On alt.religion.eckankar, Johnson has even defended Dr. David Lane from personal attacks when certain Eckists has tried to distract the argument from the evidence, etc. concerning Paul Twitchell and focus the spotlight on Lane. But you know, I am not so thin-skinned and I can take the heat. Let Johnson anaylze and psychoanlyze my belief system all he wants, the real issues will not be so easily done away with or obscured. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:45:24 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Shadows and light in Christianity Message-ID: Another thought - if I can say something positive about the current state of Christianity, it is that while it has quite a significant shadow, there are attempts being made within Christiandom to (as Jung would say) claim its shadow ... to take responsibility. There is a growing movement among some of the dominant mainstream denominations (primarily Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian) to begin to publically answer some of the assertions of the more extreme right and fundamentalist factions ... they have become concerned that because of the PR savvy some of those factions, the word "Christian" has come to automatically represent a set of narrow beliefs that are most definately not shared by all Christians. In the last couple decades significant efforts have been made to acknowledge the full equality of women ... and there is a movement to develop an environmental ethic based upon Christian values (the most public presentation of this movement recently was in Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" - a book that had questionable environmental science, but was interesting in that it made quite an argument for practicing responsible environmental behaviour as a Christian virtue). Anyway, point is, a belief system (IMO) is still alive and vital when it is attempting in some way to address its own flaws. In this respect, I think Theosophy could learn a lesson from Christianity. Regards, JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 14:41:58 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701091955.OAA26312@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Doss, you say >The bottom line is no one misappropriated any of the property and no one >personally benfitted from the property. if you are right, then how come nobody wants to tell me what has happened, or is happening to that share of the money which came to the TSA> Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 11:57:27 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701091957.LAA07921@palrel1.hp.com> John Straughn wrote: >> Titus wrote >> >> I don't think, for example, that a plant reincarnates and will become more >> conscious. That's one difference in destiny. Animals are invaluable supports >> to man and may reincarnate, but I don't think they will evolve in >> consciousness as we do. Is there a statement behind the question? [John Straughn] > Well, one *could* think of it in this way. That it is not so much a > question of consciousness as self-consciousness that we evolve. Our ability > to say "I am" has to be developed. It can't just appear out of nowhere. I > suppose it *could*, but logically I'd have to assume that it doesn't happen > that way. Theosophically, as I understand it, every atom in existence > innately desires self-consciousness and pure spirituality. These atoms > would probably be considered the minerals and elements. One of the first > things they need to experience in order to have self-consciousness is a > uniqueness among others. I would say that each plant, mineral, atom has *intelligence*, but does not have an individual psyche as we do. I don't believe that killing a plant to eat it destroys an ability for something to further evolve. Killing an animal is abhorrent to me (even though I do eat some meat), but if it is a choice between a person and an attacking tiger I would have to say that killing the tiger does not diminish the evolving consciousness of the world. It is possible that in some other "incarnation" of this solar system animals may evolve into something having self-consciousness - I don't know. > Hence plant-life. The monads, between root-races and rounds, "change" > themselves by their innate, yet still unconscious wills (swabhavas), into > the most simple life form, i.e. unique form. Like humans, I don't think you > can ever have two plants that look exactly the same, grow at the same rate, > or produce the same amount of fruit or whatever. Each one of them has a > unique pattern. The atomic elements show proise of having a unique pattern > as well in regards to the boson. (proton) One can split the boson of a > proton, shattering it, and it will reconstruct itself, retrieve the > scattered particles, "remember" where they go, and get them back in place, > totally reconstructing the proton. So there is uniqueness on the subatomic > level as well. But anywho... Plants are most definitely unique. They have > individual characteristics, or are starting to show them at this stage, but > they are in stasis. They don't have a lot to do. They have fewer senses > than do the animals and man. They cannot see, or hear, or taste, or smell > as we do, but I believe they do have senses which we cannot comprehend as of > yet. Nevertheless, throughout their lives, their experience is pretty much > the same. One place, same scenery, same "whatever" that they sense if they > sense anything. (Which they most likely do.) So the next thing the monad > wants to do innately and unconsciously, is to get more expewriences out of > its life. To gain even more individuality. To get five senses instead of > one or two. To see things. To hear things, smell them taste them and feel > them. Then, not only are there more experiences but it asdds to the variety > of different ones that each animal can have. They have true individuality. > They can set themselves apart from others. They almost have the ability to > say "I am" I've always thought it somewhat poetic that when an animal is > dying, one of the last things it might say to itself is, "I don't want this > to happen to me. I don't want to die." It is the point when an animal > realizes that it is an individual. > So when that monad is in its fourth round(actually right before it) it can > say to itself "I am" And from itself will come the "I am I", the human ego. > Which eventually manifests itself as the human being. What it comes down > to, as I understand, is that the sole purpose of all the rounds and root > races is simply to develop a self-conscious monad, which can only be done > through matter, for only senses and experience lead to individualism, hence > the "descent". Let me demonstrate my profound and wondrous ignorance of theosophy by giving my pedestrian interpretation of this round business. There is a plant stage and an animal stage in a developing world preparing the way for consciousness. We see this on a miniature time scale in the fetus, which throughout its development adopts animal-like appearances. We also certainly take much from the animal kingdom in our emotional nature. Animal yoga postures permit us to develop something of the noble strengths of animals. Does this mean we started from some animal-like predecessor? I'm not at all convinced. > I really don't think free will was so much "given" as discovered, like > mathematical theorems(sp?). We have always had will throughout our > existence as monads and animals and plants, but I think free will actually > came somewhere during the animal stage. Perhaps in higher root-races. > Don't really know. Perhaps free will is the same as saying self-consciously > directed will. In other words, it's the same will that we have had since > the beginning of the manvantara, only we recognize ourselves and our wills > and can now control them. I can agree that God gave us free will only by > defining God as the Wonderous Being (the great banyan) from which we came > and of which we are, and by saying that, as a part of that being we have a > will as well. Given or discovered? Interesting questions. Both seem right to me. Is the poet merely a cheap imitator for finding words to express inexpressible things? I think not. He is as much a creator as a discoverer. [Titus] >> There is more to life than karma. God is certainly large enough to contain >> the law of sowing and reaping - and then some. There are "gifts" from God >> that we certainly haven't fully earned, but receive out of His Love. Kind of >> like a parent asking that a child earn some money, but then giving double >> what the child earns once he has shown he is responsible. [John Straughn] > I agree that there is more to life than karma. If Gautama Buddha can get > away with being immune to karma why can't I? I also understand how you are > trying to compare "gifts from God" to the love and method of reward to a > child from a parent. However, I can't entirely agree with it. I don't > really totally understand the analogy. What are some examples of the gifts > to which you are referring? Are they only explainable as gifts from God? What is *not* an example? How much did you really earn the mountains, rivers, creatures, your friends? Partially, I'm sure. We all have a collective contribution to the mountains, rivers, creatures, but I see them as gifts. I see a friend as partially earned, but more in payment than what I gave in this or previous lives. "Gratitude is the beginning of ecstasy" said my teacher. In this, our animal companions do seem to be far ahead of us. A dog will lick the hand of his master in gratitude for what he receives. Thanks for your questions and comments. They made me take a closer look at my own views. (You may be quite correct. I just can't fully "connect" with your view.) - Titus From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:08:43 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Christmas Eve communion Message-ID: <970109150311_1924257376@emout18.mail.aol.com> And don't forget good, old Saturn, from whom cometh the Saturnalia punch (hic). Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:15:53 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <970109150958_1690217458@emout09.mail.aol.com> The only real problem with the spiritualist conception is that the Summerland is so damnably dull. I mean sitting around for eternity drinking mint julips and playing croquet just doesn't do a lot for me. Now blasting thoughtforms in the lower astral and then going on to Valhalla, that is more like it! But seriously, the real problem we have is that there is no way to truly verify any of the ideas about the post death experience so we are all going to have to find out the way everyone else has, by on-the-job training. I just hope the Vikings got it right and the Christians had it wrong. On the other hand, the Paradise of Islam doesn't sound too bad, what with the houries and all (which of the blessings of Allah would you deny?). I may put on a burnouse and sneak in, if I can remember any of my Arabic. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:34:18 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Dear Doss, > > you say > > >The bottom line is no one misappropriated any of the property and no one > >personally benfitted from the property. > > if you are right, then how come nobody wants to tell me what has happened, > or is happening to that share of the money which came to the TSA> > > Liesel > > Dear Liesel: A very good question. I was primarily refering to the allegation that the majority members of the Boston lodge which was sued somehow misappropriated assets to themselves. The reticense on the part of TSA to reveal any information make me wonder why? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 9 16:30:48 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701092130.QAA20224@envirolink.org> Titus Roth writes: >John Straughn wrote: >> Well, one *could* think of it in this way. That it is not so much a >> question of consciousness as self-consciousness that we evolve. Our >>ability to say "I am" has to be developed. It can't just appear out of >>nowhere. I suppose it *could*, but logically I'd have to assume that it >>doesn't happen that way. Theosophically, as I understand it, every atom in >>existence innately desires self-consciousness and pure spirituality. These >>atoms would probably be considered the minerals and elements. One of the >>first things they need to experience in order to have self-consciousness is >>a uniqueness among others. > >I would say that each plant, mineral, atom has *intelligence*, but does not >have an individual psyche as we do. I don't believe that killing a plant to >eat it destroys an ability for something to further evolve. Killing an animal >is abhorrent to me (even though I do eat some meat), but if it is a choice >between a person and an attacking tiger I would have to say that killing >the tiger does not diminish the evolving consciousness of the world. :) Most definitely, if we couldn't eat plants or animals, we'd starve to death. But killing something on this physical plane does not mean that you are kill the monad behind it's existence (it's "spiritual nature"). That monad may still develop itself once again as a plant, several times over in fact. I believe that for animals the same stands true. And for humans. I agree with you that plants and animals do not have a "psyche" like our own. That is kind of explained theosophically by the "multiple ego" doctrine. As we go up from the body to the paramatman(supreme self) we have several souls(vehicles) and egos. The body, then the astral soul which carries the beast ego, then the Human soul which carries the personal ego, then the higher human soul which carries the human ego, then the spiritual soul and the divine each, in turn, carrying its own ego. At the highest is the Supreme self. (I don't know if I am a believer of this heirarchy as of yet, but I'm thinking about it:)) I still haven't figured out if this works with plants and animals, because from whatI understand, they have their own heirarchies because of the fact that they are in a different round. I have kind of the pedestrian knowledge of this as well, so really this is only speculation and what I am saying may be way off course. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe that plants and animals and mountains and trees come from the same essence (call it God if you will) and, therefore, must have the same potential for evolution as everything else. Like begats like. I'm going to have to sit back and think this over a bit before I say anymore on it. There's a lot more to this than I thought there would be. (I think I said the same thing to Kym a couple of weeks ago regarding the same thing and I still haven't gotten back to her yet...hopefully she's reading this string...) >It is possible that in some other "incarnation" of this solar system animals >may evolve into something having self-consciousness - I don't know. As you can tell, I'm not PRECISELY clear on rounds and races yet either, so at this point, I must logically agree with the above statement. Hopefully soon I'll be able to change "possible" into probable or improbable ...it is very confusing, esp. when heirarchies get involved. >> Hence plant-life. The monads, between root-races and rounds, "change" >> themselves by their innate, yet still unconscious wills (swabhavas), into >> the most simple life form, i.e. unique form. Like humans, I don't think >>you can ever have two plants that look exactly the same, grow at the same >>rate, or produce the same amount of fruit or whatever. Each one of them >>has a unique pattern. The atomic elements show proise of having a unique >>pattern as well in regards to the boson. (proton) One can split the boson >>of a proton, shattering it, and it will reconstruct itself, retrieve the >> scattered particles, "remember" where they go, and get them back in place, >> totally reconstructing the proton. So there is uniqueness on the subatomic >> level as well. But anywho... Plants are most definitely unique. They >>have individual characteristics, or are starting to show them at this >>stage, but they are in stasis. They don't have a lot to do. They have >>fewer senses than do the animals and man. They cannot see, or hear, or >>taste, or smell as we do, but I believe they do have senses which we cannot >>comprehend as of yet. Nevertheless, throughout their lives, their >>experience is pretty much the same. One place, same scenery, same >>"whatever" that they sense if they sense anything. (Which they most likely >>do.) So the next thing the monad wants to do innately and unconsciously, >>is to get more expewriences out of its life. To gain even more >>individuality. To get five senses instead of one or two. To see things. >>To hear things, smell them taste them and feel them. Then, not only are >>there more experiences but it asdds to the variety of different ones that >>each animal can have. They have true individuality. They can set >>themselves apart from others. They almost have the ability to say "I am" >>I've always thought it somewhat poetic that when an animal is dying, one of >>the last things it might say to itself is, "I don't want this to happen to >>me. I don't want to die." It is the point when an animal realizes that it >is an individual. >> So when that monad is in its fourth round(actually right before it) it can >> say to itself "I am" And from itself will come the "I am I", the human ego. >> Which eventually manifests itself as the human being. What it comes down >> to, as I understand, is that the sole purpose of all the rounds and root >> races is simply to develop a self-conscious monad, which can only be done >> through matter, for only senses and experience lead to individualism, hence >> the "descent". > >Let me demonstrate my profound and wondrous ignorance of theosophy by giving >my pedestrian interpretation of this round business. There is a plant stage >and an animal stage in a developing world preparing the way for >consciousness. We see this on a miniature time scale in the fetus, which >throughout its development adopts animal-like appearances. My current hypothesis on rounds is that they are like the "planes" described in other literatur, in that they all exist right here right now. I think I read somewhere also that there are seven globes, each having it's own heirarchy(eight counting avichi nirvana) and each having it's own seven rounds. I'm nowhere NEAR being clear on that as of yet. On the above, we start out with plant-like appearance, as we divide from a fertilized egg. Then we turn into the "elephant(so cute, hehe), and eventually grow into the human. The reason that I can accept the round doctrine is that it seems logical that a monad would develop to a certain point depending on it's progress in evolution. As it progressed, it would still retain the growth process it had in it's previous existences, only taking it a step further each time. One could call it spiritual growth in manifestation. >We also certainly take much from the animal kingdom in our emotional >nature. Animal yoga postures permit us to develop something of the noble >strengths of animals. Does this mean we started from some animal-like >predecessor? I'm not at all convinced. I agre with the notion that physically we could not have evolved directly from animals, plants, minerals, etc. But spiritually, if we never had experience as animals, how could we have ever gained the above-mentioned animal-like qualities? >> I really don't think free will was so much "given" as discovered, like >> mathematical theorems(sp?). We have always had will throughout our >> existence as monads and animals and plants, but I think free will actually >> came somewhere during the animal stage. Perhaps in higher root-races. >> Don't really know. Perhaps free will is the same as saying self- >>consciously directed will. In other words, it's the same will that we have >>had since the beginning of the manvantara, only we recognize ourselves and >>our wills and can now control them. I can agree that God gave us free will >>only by defining God as the Wonderous Being (the great banyan) from which >>we came and of which we are, and by saying that, as a part of that being we >>have a will as well. > >Given or discovered? Interesting questions. Both seem right to me. Is the >poet merely a cheap imitator for finding words to express inexpressible >things? I think not. He is as much a creator as a discoverer. When you put it in those words, I have to say that you're exactly right. I suppose one could say that all creations are discoveries, but not all discoveries are creations. But then again, for it to be discovered, it had to be created, didn't it? ...hrmmm... >> away with being immune to karma why can't I? I also understand how you are >> trying to compare "gifts from God" to the love and method of reward to a >> child from a parent. However, I can't entirely agree with it. I don't >> really totally understand the analogy. What are some examples of the gifts >> to which you are referring? Are they only explainable as gifts from God? > >What is *not* an example? How much did you really earn the mountains, rivers, >creatures, your friends? Partially, I'm sure. We all have a collective >contribution to the mountains, rivers, creatures, but I see them as gifts. I >see a friend as partially earned, but more in payment than what I gave in >thisor previous lives. > >"Gratitude is the beginning of ecstasy" said my teacher. In this, our >animal companions do seem to be far ahead of us. A dog will lick the >hand of his master in gratitude for what he receives. > >Thanks for your questions and comments. They made me take a closer look >at my own views. (You may be quite correct. I just can't fully "connect" >with your view.) > >- Titus Now *I* have much more to think about. Thank you:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:08:02 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks Message-ID: <199701091908.MAA11391@mailhost.azstarnet.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: >Two people have accused me of making ad hominem attacks on >Daniel Caldwell, as a result of my stating that a rigid belief >system motivated his attacks on my work. The argument is that >I should respond in substantive detail to his attacks on my >work. In fact I have done so at great length, and said so in >the post in question. That it has not appeared on Dr. Lane's >website weeks after my sending it is due to technical delays, >not reluctance on my part. What I said, and readers of the >reply will be able to confirm, is that analysis of Mr. >Caldwell's arguments shows a rigid belief system to underly >them. That is enough said on the matter. When the response >is available the evidence on this score will be seen to be >quite abundant. >Q. What do JHE, Daniel Caldwell, and John Algeo have in common? >A. They are all people whose friendship I tried hard to secure or >maintain, who are thanked for small favors in the acknowledgments of >my last book, received free copies of both of them, and have >become implacable enemies for reasons that I think have more to >do with their belief systems than with me. > >There is something incredibly frustrating about people who give >abundant evidence of enmity, but when confronted about it say >"You're paranoid" and then use the alleged paranoia to *further* >attack you. Daniel Caldwell replies: Notice how Johnson refers to me, JHE and John Algeo: "implacable enemies" ......." people who give abundant evidence of enmity" and in his reference to my critique Johnson refers to "my attacks" on his books. He appears to be the one who wants to create an "us versus them" situation. I don't consider myself Johnson's enemy but he must consider me" his" enemy. I have nothing against Johnson personally but I do question some of his research and his conclusions on the two Masters M and KH. Yes, I have been upfront in my criticisms and I have been frank and honest in my opinions on some of his research. Yes, I believe some of his research has been less than accurate, etc. but I have also criticized the research of other Theosophical writers such as Jean Overton Fuller, Boris de Zirkoff, Geoffrey Barborka, etc. Johnson even wrote to me in 1993 and said he appreciated my razor blade critique of some of Fuller's research on HPB. I wouldn't mind being Johnson's friend but IF to be his friend, I had to be all nice smiles and refrain from telling him what I honestly thought of some of his research and conclusions, then it would probably be better not to be his friend. I don't always agree with what John Crocker writes on Theos-l but I do admire his frank outspoken way of writing. I wonder how Johnson would react if he and Crocker ever got on opposite sides of an issue and in a heated argument? : ) Yes, I do have beliefs, doesn't Johnson? But I think the attentive reader of my critique will see issues that have nothing to do with me personally or with Johnson personally. The issues are bigger than both of us and will still be around when we are both dead. Erase Caldwell and Johnson from the equation and look at Johnson's CONJECTURES on M and KH and the ARGUMENTS in my critique. Does it really matter who came up with these hypotheses on M and KH? Does it really matter who wrote the critique on Johnson's hypotheses? The seeker of truth, the dispassioned scholar, etc. will look at the issues and forget the two people who wrote the material. I will see how Johnson responds to my critique but I do believe that all this reference to my "rigid" belief system is a smokescreen to distract from the real issues involved. Why has Johnson decided not to deal exclusively with the issues raised but to also muddle around with my supposed "rigid" adherence to some belief system? I bet Johnson would cry "foul" if someone was to attack his books and also attempt to psychoanlyze his personality, his belief system, etc.? On alt.religion.eckankar, Johnson has even defended Dr. David Lane from personal attacks when certain Eckists has tried to distract the argument from the evidence, etc. concerning Paul Twitchell and focus the spotlight on Lane. But you know, I am not so thin-skinned and I can take the heat. Let Johnson anaylze and psychoanlyze my belief system all he wants, the real issues will not be so easily done away with or obscured. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:19:54 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <33136e34.62131654@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, Tim Maroney wrote: >>I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, also. > >Try using base 3. You can call the result of adding 2 and 2 anything. That hardly means that the laws by which the addition is made is subject to individual interpretation. >the ideas held by mathematicians about what the laws of mathematics are >have changed over time and have changed enormously in the last two >centuries, so an argument for timelessness would be hard to sustain. An argument for the timelessness of ideas about the laws of mathematics would be impossible to sustain. Like all forms, such ideas constantly change. But the laws themselves are eternal. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:45:27 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <331571b6.63030062@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 9 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Titus Roth writes: >>I don't think, for example, that a plant reincarnates and will become more >>conscious. That's one difference in destiny. Animals are invaluable >>supports to man and may reincarnate, but I don't think they will evolve in >>consciousness as we do. Plants and animals do not evolve as individuals, but all consciousness is evolving. >Our ability to say "I >am" has to be developed. It can't just appear out of nowhere. I suppose it >*could*, but logically I'd have to assume that it doesn't happen that way. That something could miraculously arise from nothing, independently of any law governing it, seems preposterous, but should be considered as a possibility by a non-omniscient being. Believing that the universe is orderly and ruled by laws requires faith. >Theosophically, as I understand it, every atom in existence innately desires >self-consciousness and pure spirituality. I wonder if pure spirituality is the ultimate desire or, analogous to sexual desire, the union of spirit and matter is the ultimate desire. >They have >true individuality. They can set themselves apart from others. They almost >have the ability to say "I am" I've always thought it somewhat poetic that >when an animal is dying, one of the last things it might say to itself is, "I >don't want this to happen to me. I don't want to die." It is the point when >an animal realizes that it is an individual. I don't believe animals have self-consciousness. I have heard people say that animals feel embarrassed, but I have never seen any sign of it. If anyone should feel embarrassed, it is my cat. >I really don't think free will was so much "given" as discovered, like >mathematical theorems(sp?). I do not see how free will can be given. Its potential may be "given" in the same sense that individual existence is "given," but It is either developed by the individual or it is not. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 23:07:47 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <33187863.64739053@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 9 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >As we go up from the body to the paramatman(supreme self) we have >several souls(vehicles) and egos. The body, then the astral soul which >carries the beast ego, then the Human soul which carries the personal ego, >then the higher human soul which carries the human ego, then the spiritual >soul and the divine each, in turn, carrying its own ego. At the highest is the >Supreme self. (I don't know if I am a believer of this heirarchy as of yet, but >I'm thinking about it:)) The idea that there is an infinite hierarchy, with neither highest nor lowest, makes the most sense to me. There may be limited levels of attainment within each kingdom, but that only means that more advanced kingdoms can always be found, for the lowest elemental on downwards, and for the God of the limited, known universe, on upwards. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:15:13 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Post-Christian era? Message-ID: <199701092316.SAA17294@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Thoa Tran > > At any rate, it's good to go where your faith is at the moment. You > obviously have felt many dissatisfactions under the Theosophy and the Baha'i > groups, and you should go where you are satisfied. The important thing is > not which organization you are under, but that you keep the faith. All > religions have done some bad and good, although I can't recall any > injustices committed under Buddhism. I myself don't belong to any group, > and am starting to like it that way. It's good to know others, though, who > are into enlightening themselves, and compare that nugget of truth with > them. I usually look at any belief, take what I like and leave what I don't > like. I hope that you will find what you are looking for, as we are all > searching. > There was a point in my life when I felt that I didn't need any group or wanted one to make connect with the light inside of me. However, after a period of time, I realized I had to go out and give back what I had learned. So I joined TS. Now, let's all not laugh too loud here! I can hear you! Anyway, I found that it can be difficult to find what you are seeking for in a group or even a teacher. It is better to find the truth, light, enlightenment, one's soul, whatever, by oneself and then find a channel through which you can be useful in the world. Many spiritual organizations in the world have so long operated on a patriarchical mode that they can't see what's up ahead and that equality, as well as the rise of the feminine spirit, is the future. For women who wish to serve, but not become servile to a male governing body, they may have a harder time searching for an appropriate group in which to function. They may very well start their own groups. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 23:44:25 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: JRC's credibility Message-ID: <331e810c.66955772@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 9 Jan 97, "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: >Tom Robertson writes that "If anyone has any reason to consider >your [JRC's] credibility to be more than negligible, I would >love to hear why." OK: > >On any subject related to TSA affairs I've ever seen him >discuss, JRC's comments have been well-founded in observations >and he can back up his judgments with details. He has been >consistently insightful about how the TSA operates and why, in >ways that cause me to have "Aha" reactions where formerly I >was totally confused. No one to my knowledge has ever caught >him in a factual error on these subjects. He has been >attentive to all evidence presented from any source. His >conclusions about the Boston lodge affair are based, in >addition to his own insights into Wheaton, on research >done by Sy Ginsburg who actually went to the Boston area to >interview people. Rich Taylor, a Theosophical conservative who >is poles apart from JRC on doctrinal matters, was present at >the Boston imbroglio, and backed up what Sy reported. NOTE-- >Rich is an HPB Theosophist who deplored the Baileyite emphasis >of many people in the lodge but STILL considered Wheaton's >comments on the matter to be grotesquely unfair and >inaccurate. The actual dollar amount spent on lawyers was >slightly short of $500000, as reported by Sy and Rich; all this >is in the theos-l archives for the period leading up to the >ballot on by-laws changes. That's a brief effort at a reply >to your presumably rhetorical challenge. Do you love it, as you >said you would? I always appreciate level-headed attempts at giving substantive information. That the predominant way I have seen JRC act has been just the opposite from how you describe him does not make what you say false. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 23:48:21 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks Message-ID: <331f8376.67573348@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 9 Jan 97, "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: >There is something incredibly frustrating about people who give >abundant evidence of enmity, but when confronted about it say >"You're paranoid" and then use the alleged paranoia to *further* >attack you. I know the feeling. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:07:32 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Post-Christian era? Message-ID: In message <199701092316.SAA17294@cliff.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >For women who wish to serve, >but not become servile to a male governing body, they may >have a harder time searching for an appropriate group in >which to function. They may very well start their own groups. They not only may, but *have* started their own. You won't find them around the list though! 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, 09 Jan 1997 23:19:34 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <331a7c5f.65758956@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 9 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > I now am certain that you are not properly differentiating between >philosophy and science. Philosophy _is_ a science. >> Can you decide that if all oranges are fruits, >> and if X is a fruit, then X must be an orange? > Yes. It would not, however, be terribly useful. It would be worse than not useful. It would be objectively wrong. I did not decide that it was wrong and you cannot make it right by choosing so. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 23:48:42 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: In message <970109010357_1417132662@emout05.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Uh, cornish hens..... > >Chuck the Heretic Chuck, Uh, ???? Alan the Ignorant --------- 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, 09 Jan 1997 23:34:27 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <331d7f90.66575141@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Essentially, everybody has a set of moral axioms. Some are pretty >much universal (such as "it is wrong to kill human beings"). However, in >most situations, there are several moral axioms that come into play, and >there is almost always some conflict. Perception of morality would be meaningless if there was no objectively existing morality to perceive. There is a standard by which to measure human perception of morality. > The Mahatmas, in my opinion, pointed their fingers in the right >direction, when they expressed the importance of intent. If one's >actions are well-thought out and intended to make the world a better >place in which to live, then they can be said to be moral. Intent guarantees results which conform to them eventually, but intent cannot be separated from results. Anyone who says that intent is all that matters, and that results do not matter, does not have genuine intent. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:52:08 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <970109205208_1044535298@emout04.mail.aol.com> Tom Robertson wrote--> I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, also. Richard Ihle writes--> I can't give you that, but I can give you one example of the trouble mathematics can have when it touches something "not of itself": two gallons of water added to two gallons of alcohol does not result in four gallons (it is less because of a difference in the size of the molecules--they "squeeze together" or something). Thus, I think Bart made a compelling point when he said, "Mathematics is meaningless without mathematics; it is a self-contained, self-referential system." Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:14:40 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Belated responses Message-ID: <332287ae.68653723@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: >To Tom Robertson-- historically, the term theosophist has been >used almost entirely by Christians, That's interesting. >so I don't see how you can >use them as mutually exclusive categories. I did not mean they were entirely mutually exclusive. I still frequently quote the Bible, myself. I only meant that, assuming there must be some differences between them, or else their going by two different names would be inappropriate, one must be regarded as superior to the other. >As for the wisdom of TPH rejecting my work, that is a much >deeper and more confusing issue than you seem to recognize. That is easy to believe, as I know virtually nothing specific about it. It has been a while since I wrote what you are responding to, so my memory may be faulty, but I believe I merely wrote that, in general, a publishing business is not obligated to publish everything brought to it. I have no significant opinion about whether or not they should have published your book. >They took an entire year to decide to reject it, but *never* >gave me an *iota* of feedback on the research or the literary >quality. Seven out of eight Theosophical reviewers were >favorable (at various levels of strength) so it is quite wrong >to depict the book as having been widely rejected by the >Theosophical membership. In case you believe I depicted this, I never meant to, as I have no knowledge of it either way. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 21:04:05 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701100217.VAA10257@ultra1.dreamscape.com> To JRC, Dear John. My advice to you is not to blow your choppers anymore. You're not going to change Tom's mind. He's not even interested in listening. He'll have to find out on his own, down the road a ways, how right we unfortunately are. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 00:17:10 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Belated responses Message-ID: <33238a1f.69278495@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 9 Jan 97, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: >the people who don't agree with the thesis in your book are >no better or worse than the people who do agree with your thesis. Those who are right about it, to that extent, are better than those who are wrong about it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:34:09 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Humbleness Message-ID: <199701100234.SAA11564@proxy2.ba.best.com> Hi Doss, You have said several statements regarding humbleness. I am learning several glorious aspects of it. First is simplicity. I was the type of person that feels that I can do everything, and I did try. I worked, went to school, cooked elaborate meals, learned anything that came my way, helped others and did art work. Even my art work could not be simple. I had to do oil painting, silk painting, computer graphics, seamstressing, and ceramics. What resulted was a person with very diverse skills but no deep love of any one thing. I ultimately became tired and disappointed in myself as I was forced to let go of each skill. The thought of the mountain of things I have to do each day paralyzed me into not getting anything done. Lately, the light is shining through for me. I am learning to simplify and let go. I am breaking down activities and being mindful as I perform them. It feels very calming to say, "I am following each brush line of this painting. I am building slowly each stroke. One day, all these strokes will be a painting, but for now, I am enjoying each stroke," or to say, "Today, I am mopping the floor. I am taking my time mopping the floor. I am not going to think of how the rest of the house needs organizing." It is alright to be humble by being simple. This was a very basic Buddhist tenet, but I never truly understood it until now. The second thing I learned is not having to prove myself. I don't have to prove that I am best at anything anymore. I don't have to begin a painting by thinking how I am going to make it a unique and special painting. Just the simple act of enjoying each brush stroke is good enough. Making each task a special event within myself instead of a wonderful event for somebody else is difficult, but much more rewarding. Also, there's no need to prove how smart I am. I simplified my vocabulary and just try to communicate as honestly as possible. The third is that I am learning about love, loving each moment, loving each thing, seeing the Divine in all things. This automatically creates humbleness. There is so much involved in being humble. Namaste, TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 02:43:13 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <3332a8b9.77079712@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) wrote: >To JRC, > >Dear John. My advice to you is not to blow your choppers anymore. You're >not going to change Tom's mind. He's not even interested in listening. I infer from this statement a perception by you of a more firm conclusion on my part than I have. But you are right about my not being interested in listening. Especially since I don't particularly care about what happened with the Boston Lodge, it takes very little such abusive vitriol to lead me to conclude that I have much better ways of educating myself. My advice to JRC is that some people will lay down their lives to oppose arrogant bullies. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 22:10:02 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: personal survival Message-ID: <199701100323.WAA22164@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Michael states: >It is my opinion that Theosophists should >acquaint themselves far more with mediumistic phenomena because from that >stable came the movement but severed its connections for various reasons, >although HPB continued to act as a medium. I think, Michael, I agree with your idea, but the word "medium" has some connotations in English which many Theosophists consider unfavorably. A medium is a person who gives him(her)self over to some other entity, which then expresses itself through the medium, the medium not being in control, but the other entity being in control, and using up the medium's energy. Many of us don't believe in doing this, and many of us make a difference between ESP which taps into the astral plane, where things can look hazy, and ESP which works on the higher mental etc. planes, where what is perceived is supposed to be more reliable. ALso, whatever is thus perceived doesn't sap the ESP person's energy that drastically. Now, please don't ask me whether HPB fits into this. I don't know. But after her, this what I've been taught we believe. Alan Bain asked TI members to express themselves on the 3rd object. Since that fits in here, I'm posting this message in both places. TI's 3rd object reads "To investigate unexplained laws of nature and unrealized human potential and abilities, at the same time respecting *all* life." Following this, I believe that Theosophists should interest themselves in any form of ESP, as a human potential. I find that present day Theosophists have a tendency to only recognize very well trained, powerful psychics, and neglect anyone who has some abilities which aren't tops. I don't agree with that. I think, if you know something, you should try to teach it, not tell the others they're inept. It seems that non-theosophists have gone so far as to dare talk about near death experiences. There are hints in some of the research literature that some have gone further, but don't dare acknowledge. Our psychics have explored much further. They've not been able to say too much until very recently, without being persecuted, proecuted, and being made into a circus, but we have their writings. I think that's less and less the case, and I think psychics can now dare come out of the closet a little more, gingerly, carefully, and help the others find their way in this. Just as an example, I think it's about time that Dora Kunz be recognized as the inventor of Therapeutic Touch, which is by now being practiced all over the US. Apparently, Dora never liked to work alone, and so Dolores Krieger did just as much work as Dora with developing TT. Dolores taught TT at NYU and Dolores wrote the textbook. Dolores did a lot to help spread the practice of TT, and several generations of health professionals who learnt from these 2 also helped spread the technique, so that today, in Syracuse there's a healer who does TT who never even heard of either Dora or Dee. But at the beginning, it was Dora's idea. TT is a way of healing, using a form of ESP, easy enough for almost everyone to be able to learn. "Unexplained laws of nature", and "human potential", to me, doesn't stop at ESP. I take it to mean that a Therosophist tries to keep up with the frontiers of knowledge. In this spirit, I've read up on, (and tried more or less successfully to understand) particle physics, Prigogine and entropy, chaos theory, Jung and his many followers. I've loved every minute of it, whether I understood it or not, because I was trying to keep up with the world. It was a surprise to me that not all Theosophists understand the 3rd object in this sense. I think it says clearly to investigate at the forefront of knowledge. And let me tell you ... it's fun! Liesel PS If anyone knows about something interesting & newer having been discovered after chaos theory, please let me know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:26:37 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <33269976.73205577@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97 23:21:43 +0000, you wrote: >Tom wrote: >>Forms are commonly called "reality," >>but, since they constantly change, their identity having no duration, I >>would not include them in my definition of "reality." > > >Geez Tom, > >You recently spent a lot of energy trying to back up the notion that >individuals constantly change, have no duration and hence no reality. >Now you feign to make a statement that "forms are not real either" and >then go on to say that "you" (presumably an individual? functionally >dependant on a form or a set of forms?) have a definition of reality >(isn't that just another mental form?) that you can create (how reliable >a "principle" can it be if you're just making it up as you go along?) by >choosing to additively include things as you fancy them. Aren't you just >piling up lots of mental smoke into puffy little balls and then sneezing >them into smithereens? > >I hope you're getting off on all this, because it's the only thing in >what you said that makes any "real" sense to me. > >Mark I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but perfectly consistent, as I am incapable of such human error. Individual human beings, like all other forms, constantly change. Only what cannot change is real. I don't see how I am saying anything all that profound. I don't even smoke, and I rarely sneeze, anyway. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 9 23:00:24 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701100400.XAA29941@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but perfectly >consistent, as I am incapable of such human error. Individual human >beings, like all other forms, constantly change. Only what cannot change >is real. I don't see how I am saying anything all that profound. I don't >even smoke, and I rarely sneeze, anyway. Just to clear things up. If your first sentence is not meant to be sarcastic, which I would think it was, is the *I* to which you are referring the "you" as the human individual or the unchangeable "real" you? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 04:15:56 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <3338c049.82871059@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but perfectly >>consistent, as I am incapable of such human error. Individual human >>beings, like all other forms, constantly change. Only what cannot change >>is real. I don't see how I am saying anything all that profound. I don't >>even smoke, and I rarely sneeze, anyway. >Just to clear things up. If your first sentence is not meant to be sarcastic, >which I would think it was, I would never be sarcastic. Well, almost never, anyway. >is the *I* to which you are referring the "you" as >the human individual or the unchangeable "real" you? I don't believe there is an unchangeable real me. Individuality is a temporary illusion. Whatever had a beginning must have an end. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:23:11 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > I infer from this statement a perception by you of a more firm conclusion > on my part than I have. But you are right about my not being interested in > listening. Especially since I don't particularly care about what happened > with the Boston Lodge, it takes very little such abusive vitriol to lead me > to conclude that I have much better ways of educating myself. My advice to > JRC is that some people will lay down their lives to oppose arrogant > bullies. > I infer from this statement you are calling me an "arrogant bully". Good. It was my intention to be just that. I had two purposes in my Boston Lodge posts. The first was to (as I do periodically) raise the issue of the situation for newcomers to the list. HQ has gotten away with a lot of things over the last few years by supressing any awareness of their activities from the general membership. To the extent that I can, I mean to make sure a light is shined on behaviour that HQ wishes to remain in the dark. The second was to reflect your energy back at you as precisely as possible. Everyone carries around an energy with theem. I know people that, upon entering a room, merely by their presence seem to harmonize and uplift. It is more than words, it is general tone. In your case, regardless of what your opinions are of yourself, from the moment you entered the list you introduced an energy of divisiveness, had numbers of people enraged and battling one another, and on numerous occaisions used well developed rhetorical skills in a manner as viscious as anything I've seen on this list (and that's really saying something). It was exceedingly evident with perspective. The list has gone through periods of fighting, and periods of relative harmony. When you first signed on, it was in one of its periods of quiet, harmonious discussions - and almost overnight, within a couple days of your first posts, it was a place of almost violent conflict. You spoke to people in exceedingly condescending, demeaning and judgemental terms, on a couple of different occaisions wrote posts clearly designed to goad people into behaviour that you then critisized them for, and throughout the situation, responded to every comment that you were doing so, that you were causing deep dissension in our *community*, with self-righteousness and further attacks. My own particular way of dealing with such situations - the way of the Tao - is to not only reflect the energy as completely as possible, but to actually magnify it to levels where it becomes so absurd that even the originator of it loses the urge to generate it. Call me a bully if you want - but a few people that were bullied by *you* (regardless of how innocent you believe yourself to be) are not unhappy to see you receiving your own energy ... and not at all suprised that you don't like it. You may wonder why I actually seem to have a bit of credibility on the list - certainly from your experience I shouldn't. But you must understand, this list is a *Lodge* of an entirely new sort - IMO almost closer to the originating idea of TS Lodges than has been possible up to now - the diversity of opinions, presence of people from all factions and even a considerable number of different countries and cultures. Those that have been on it for some time have developed quite complex relationships with one another ... have witnessed each other's turmoil and growth, have seen one another in a variety of different moods, and have, perhaps, come to know a bit of the permanent that lies under the transient. We have learned one another's sore spots, but also seen one another at our best. We've seen profound enemies become close friends - seen people who would never interact thrown into contact with each other, and learn tolerance at levels few situations give the opportunity to learn ... the work of real, as opposed to theoretical, spiritual growth. There are people that I think I haven't agreed with about *anything* that I can honestly say I *love*, and would be terribly disturbed to see them leave our on-line Lodge. And I will continue to reflect your tone. Ordinarily this is not something I'd bother with, but you have done the one thing that, as bad as fights on this list have gotten, I have *never* seen done. While many have called the behaviour or attitudes of others "untheosophical" ... I can't recall *anyone* having the utter arrogance to say another list member shouldn't even call themself a Theosophist. You have the right to introduce any energy you wish into our Lodge. I have the right to answer that energy in any way I wish. If you approach me with elevated tones, that is how I will respond. You can blast away at me if you want - I have a *very* thick skin and you have no ability to damage me, or my credibility in any way - but any shot you take you will receive back ... raised to the second power and framed in rhetoric as developed as yours. I'll meet you on any battlefield *you* determine - but would prefer not to battle at all. It is up to you. You wanna call me an "arrogant bully" that you will "fight to the death"? Cool! Would you like me to give you a half dozen quotes from your own posts that, to everyone but yourself, would be considered those of an "arrogant bully"? I'd be most happy to ... because the reason I have credibility is because regardless of what *tone* I speak in in, I do not make statements without first having evidence to do so. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 9 23:37:47 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701100437.XAA02709@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Fri, 10 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: > >>Tom Robertson writes: > >>>I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but perfectly >>>consistent, as I am incapable of such human error. Individual human >>>beings, like all other forms, constantly change. Only what cannot change >>>is real. I don't see how I am saying anything all that profound. I don't >>>even smoke, and I rarely sneeze, anyway. > >>Just to clear things up. If your first sentence is not meant to be >>sarcastic, which I would think it was, > >I would never be sarcastic. Well, almost never, anyway. > > >>is the *I* to which you are referring the "you" as >>the human individual or the unchangeable "real" you? > >I don't believe there is an unchangeable real me. Individuality is a >temporary illusion. Whatever had a beginning must have an end. Can you say for sure that you had a beginning? And can you prove this? Mind you I am not saying of the physical sense, but everything as one. Can you prove that everything that makes up *you* had a beginning? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 9 23:40:19 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Another Lodge Question Message-ID: <199701100440.XAA02912@envirolink.org> What are the benefits to having a "recognized" Lodge as opposed to having a (l)odge; i.e. a theosophical group or committee not recognized by HQ? Is it funding? Resources? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 23:05:52 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Humbleness Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970110050552.0069b8a4@mail.eden.com> At 09:50 PM 1/9/97 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Doss, > >You have said several statements regarding humbleness. I am learning >several glorious aspects of it. > >First is simplicity. I was the type of person that feels that I can do >everything, and I did try. I worked, went to school, cooked elaborate >meals, learned anything that came my way, helped others and did art work. >Even my art work could not be simple. I had to do oil painting, silk >painting, computer graphics, seamstressing, and ceramics. What resulted was >a person with very diverse skills but no deep love of any one thing. I >ultimately became tired and disappointed in myself as I was forced to let go >of each skill. The thought of the mountain of things I have to do each day >paralyzed me into not getting anything done. Lately, the light is shining >through for me. I am learning to simplify and let go. I am breaking down >activities and being mindful as I perform them. It feels very calming to >say, "I am following each brush line of this painting. I am building slowly >each stroke. One day, all these strokes will be a painting, but for now, I >am enjoying each stroke," or to say, "Today, I am mopping the floor. I am >taking my time mopping the floor. I am not going to think of how the rest >of the house needs organizing." It is alright to be humble by being simple. >This was a very basic Buddhist tenet, but I never truly understood it until now. > >The second thing I learned is not having to prove myself. I don't have to >prove that I am best at anything anymore. I don't have to begin a painting >by thinking how I am going to make it a unique and special painting. Just >the simple act of enjoying each brush stroke is good enough. Making each >task a special event within myself instead of a wonderful event for somebody >else is difficult, but much more rewarding. Also, there's no need to prove >how smart I am. I simplified my vocabulary and just try to communicate as >honestly as possible. > >The third is that I am learning about love, loving each moment, loving each >thing, seeing the Divine in all things. This automatically creates >humbleness. There is so much involved in being humble. > >Namaste, >TTT > Hi, what a wonderful post. While I mentioned humbleness, I did not mention about simplifying our lives. I have been trying to simplify my life and also I have been trying to get my clients simplify their lives as well. I am in the fortunate situation of having to consult with my clients both with their business and even personal matters. What a difference it has made in the lives of people including myself. I agree that I no longer try to prove myself. From time to time, when you find people riding on high horses try to talk you down -- then I beat my own drums to tell them that talking down is not going to help -- as I feel I am at the same level as anyone is -- high, low, educated, illiterate, dumb etc etc. I do not know if it does any good. But if official business related matters, I have found it necessary to get the point across. In non business and non official matters it does not matter at all. Basically I am a doer; sometimes it may get me into trouble. But when you have the welfare and best interests of other person or persons or organizations in your heart, and you act, the act itself the right action and I hope love is automatically is the driving force. When we look at all the problems around around us -- then it makes me think how fortunate I am and it motivates me to do what I can to help anyone -- friends, neighbors, strangers, any living being, however high or lowly. That is all for know. MKR Simplify your life -- A good motto in addition to "There is Religion higher than Truth" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 23:05:54 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Motherboard battery Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970110050554.0069e768@mail.eden.com> At 04:14 AM 1/10/97 +0100, you wrote: >At 13:29 9-01-97 -0600, you wrote: >>On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Michael wrote: >> >>> Re Ramadoss' experience with his motherboard: there are many of them who >>> have an extra socket to power the clock in case the battery succumbs. An >>> outside battery (even penlites) may be connected to that socket after one >>> has changed a dip-switch (see manual) >>> Michael >>> Amsterdam, Netherlands >>> http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html >>> >>Glad for the info. In the MB that I bought and returned, I checked and >>there was no provision for an outside battery. May be a bad design. >>Anyhow the new MB has the simple nc battery which looks like a coin. >> >> >Why can't they make things easier in computerworld. I have an older 486 here >which runs 10 hours a day slow! Bringing home the relativity of time. >Success with your new MB! >Michael >Amsterdam, Netherlands >http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html > I moved from a 286/386 to Cyrix P166+. I suppose the MB I bought was a top of the line normally used for servers which usually run round the clock. In such a situation, there is no drain on the battery and hence would not be a problem. So that's is what was the driving force in the design. The new m/c runs real fast especially with a video board with 4MB on it. The speed is especially noticeable when I am on Internet. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 22:42:56 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701100542.WAA18515@snowden.micron.net> Titus wrote: >I don't think, for example, that a plant reincarnates and will become more >conscious. That's one difference in destiny. Animals are invaluable supports >to man and may reincarnate, but I don't think they will evolve in >consciousness as we do. Why do you think a plant doesn't reincarnate? A plant is composed of measurable energy - where do you think the energy goes upon death of the plant? This I find particularly perplexing: "Animals may, but I don't think they will evolve in consciousness as we do." Would you consider them evolving at all? If so, into what? What different kind of consciousness do you think they will evolve into? A quick read of "When Elephants Weep" may change your mind about looking at animals as our "support." Animals suffer, die, love, fear, grieve, experience happiness, and make moral decisions. Their corporeal form and lack of language may be the primary differential. Many animals have the reasoning capability of infants and children - even of some adults I know. I am assuming you think infants and children will 'evolve.' Why wouldn't animals? >Is there a statement behind the question? Affirmative. There is more evidence to support the opposite of what you claim. Plants, animals, and humans are all imbued with the same basic aspects: Consciousness, Energy, and Form. Put very simply, if all is of the same Source, composed of the same elements - upon death, the Consciousness/Energy would dissipate, but not disappear. The Energy would be drawn into another form, would it not, driven by the desire to create? >>> Jesus also drew many analogies with human life from >>> nature, nevertheless He put man on a different footing than anything else in >>> creation. For example (Matthew 10:29-31) I don't gather Jesus to be implying nature is on a different "footing" than humans - or, using your gender-exclusive term, "man." If anything, Jesus is acknowledging that sparrows have the attention of God. Jesus was speaking to his listeners in terms they could understand - using an analogy of money. I don't think Jesus had the time to teach the even broader, more complex philosophy of interconnectedness to a group of humans who were just getting a clue about themselves. >In my very pedestrian understanding of Ecclesiastes, it seems to me the author >is using another example of how transitory one life is. We will lose all >earthly things we vainly strive for - and in this respect share the same fate >as animals. "All is vanity and vexation of spirit." Are you interpreting it >differently? Please say more. To me, Ecclesiastes is saying the same thing Socrates said: "An unexamined life is not worth living." The author of Ecclesiastes surveys life, realizes that knowing the absolute, real truth is impossible, and decides that serving God is the surest route in an unsure world. Ecclesiastes asks a very pointed question: "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" It seems you do. Concluding that the spirit of animals goes upward is less fraught with disaster than supposing the opposite. Christianity is real good at looking at the world this way, and thus, we have the exploitation of the planet and nature. If, from the beginning, Christianity had seen it the other way, the world would have been a much different place. Recognition of merit results in management with respect. Anthropocentricism has failed us. >There is more to life than karma. God is certainly large enough to contain the >law of sowing and reaping - and then some. There are "gifts" from God that we >certainly haven't fully earned, but receive out of His Love. "Gifts?" "Fully earned." Again, this places God smack in the middle of the 'teacher's pet' problem. As long as we believe what we have or lack is somehow God's doing and choice, we will forever remain wibble-wobbled by events. When something goes wrong and we find ourselves unable to cope - well, guess it was "God's Will," S/He/It was displeased, or simply in a vinegary mood. If things go well, God has noticed our fine performance and has rewarded us for making S/He/It happy. It makes God's Love seem too human. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:19:27 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <970110011926_1107469291@emout11.mail.aol.com> Alan, Small chickens, originally from Cornwall but imported to America. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:39:06 GMT From: dewberry@poboxes.com (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Humbleness Message-ID: <32d6e760.41265569@mail> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 21:50:51 -0500 (EST), you wrote: Wonderfully said. If you practice living in the moment long enough, then suddenly, one day the brain becomes silent. No more chatter or debating with oneself over this or that. You may already have found this but if you haven't, it is a nice way to live. I find that if I slip back to the chatter it feels so uncomfortable that I re-orient myself to the NOW again. It allows the still, small voice to whisper it's message and somehow life flows along channels that feel right when that message is followed. I do not always hear it right but I am trying and have become aware that it is there so that is enough for me. Simplicity is a natural outcome of living in the now, or so it seems to me and I find my squirrel nature is allowing for less nuts to be gathered as I have begun to rely on the Universe to point me in the direction of the nuts when I need them. I no longer buy something unless I really need it and little by little I am discarding some of the clutter in my external life to match the inner life. Just a little thought from me. Bee >Hi Doss, > >You have said several statements regarding humbleness. I am learning >several glorious aspects of it. > >First is simplicity. I was the type of person that feels that I can do >everything, and I did try. I worked, went to school, cooked elaborate >meals, learned anything that came my way, helped others and did art work. >Even my art work could not be simple. I had to do oil painting, silk >painting, computer graphics, seamstressing, and ceramics. What resulted was >a person with very diverse skills but no deep love of any one thing. I >ultimately became tired and disappointed in myself as I was forced to let go >of each skill. The thought of the mountain of things I have to do each day >paralyzed me into not getting anything done. Lately, the light is shining >through for me. I am learning to simplify and let go. I am breaking down >activities and being mindful as I perform them. It feels very calming to >say, "I am following each brush line of this painting. I am building slowly >each stroke. One day, all these strokes will be a painting, but for now, I >am enjoying each stroke," or to say, "Today, I am mopping the floor. I am >taking my time mopping the floor. I am not going to think of how the rest >of the house needs organizing." It is alright to be humble by being simple. >This was a very basic Buddhist tenet, but I never truly understood it until now. > >The second thing I learned is not having to prove myself. I don't have to >prove that I am best at anything anymore. I don't have to begin a painting >by thinking how I am going to make it a unique and special painting. Just >the simple act of enjoying each brush stroke is good enough. Making each >task a special event within myself instead of a wonderful event for somebody >else is difficult, but much more rewarding. Also, there's no need to prove >how smart I am. I simplified my vocabulary and just try to communicate as >honestly as possible. > >The third is that I am learning about love, loving each moment, loving each >thing, seeing the Divine in all things. This automatically creates >humbleness. There is so much involved in being humble. > >Namaste, >TTT > > 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: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:39:11 GMT From: dewberry@poboxes.com (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <32d7ead5.42150112@mail> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997 23:21:01 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >On Fri, 10 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: > >>Tom Robertson writes: > >>>I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but perfectly >>>consistent, as I am incapable of such human error. Individual human >>>beings, like all other forms, constantly change. Only what cannot change >>>is real. I don't see how I am saying anything all that profound. I don't >>>even smoke, and I rarely sneeze, anyway. > >>Just to clear things up. If your first sentence is not meant to be sarcastic, >>which I would think it was, > >I would never be sarcastic. Well, almost never, anyway. > > >>is the *I* to which you are referring the "you" as >>the human individual or the unchangeable "real" you? > >I don't believe there is an unchangeable real me. Individuality is a >temporary illusion. Whatever had a beginning must have an end. > As I understand it, the personality is the illusion and the reason for all this illusion is to become an individual within the whole. Vitvan says that within us there is a 'power-to-be-conscious' that is evolving to become conscious of itself and so be an individual aspect within 'the-all-that-is'. It seems this takes so long to achieve that we keep on growing and evolving for 'ever?'. This 'power' could be thought of as the highest aspect of the 'All', experiencing itself through us and as it grows, become more 'itself'. The personality period is the time to develop a strong ego which then has to be relinquished voluntarily at some stage of our path. Once that has been let go off, it then seems that a person will turn to love as a way of life. It is all very fascinating. When seen in this light, will power is part of the ego and is used to develop the ego dispite the 'All' and so karma piles up. When the ego is dropped then there is no need for will power as a person follows their love which is the way of the 'All' and becomes the natural order of living. 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: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 05:07:17 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <333acdef.86286241@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>I don't believe there is an unchangeable real me. Individuality is a >>temporary illusion. Whatever had a beginning must have an end. >Can you say for sure that you had a beginning? And can you prove this? >Mind you I am not saying of the physical sense, but everything as one. >Can you prove that everything that makes up *you* had a beginning? Anything that has identity is temporary. Only the homogeneous substance that makes up what has identity is eternal. I believe it was in "The Key to Theosophy" that HPB said that "Atman is no individual property of any human being." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 05:20:57 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <333cce9d.86459749@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >You say that free will has nothing to do with evolution. I didn't mean to. In that certain ways of evolving are seen as the best alternative, they are chosen. >But don't we, as individual monads ourselves, have the power to control >our own evolution? The problem I have with free will is that it is impossible to choose an alternative which is regarded as anything but the best alternative, and I don't see how perception of the value of alternatives is subject to free will. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 10 04:49:07 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701100949.EAA02152@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Fri, 10 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: > >>Tom Robertson writes: > >>>I don't believe there is an unchangeable real me. Individuality is a >>>temporary illusion. Whatever had a beginning must have an end. > >>Can you say for sure that you had a beginning? And can you prove this? >>Mind you I am not saying of the physical sense, but everything as one. >>Can you prove that everything that makes up *you* had a beginning?Anything >that has identity is temporary. Only the homogeneous substancethat makes up >what has identity is eternal. I believe it was in "The Keyto Theosophy" >that HPB said that "Atman is no individual property of anyhuman being." But what of Buddhi? Isn't that eternal as well? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 10 05:02:49 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <199701101002.FAA03288@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Wed, 8 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: > >>You say that free will has nothing to do with evolution. > >I didn't mean to. In that certain ways of evolving are seen as the best >alternative, they are chosen. > > >>But don't we, as individual monads ourselves, have the power to control >>our own evolution? >The problem I have with free will is that it is impossible to choose an >alternative which is regarded as anything but the best alternative, and I >don't see how perception of the value of alternatives is subject to free >will. I can agree with you only if you using "best" as a relative term. What *I* think is best is not necessarily what you think is best. I suppose that free will goes hand in hand with relativity which goes hand in hand with individuality. Trying to put myself into your shoes, if you believe that there is no permanent you, no permanent individuality, then free will would seem to be a senseless proposition. I'd like to understand your point of view much more clearly, for there are a lot of fine points that need to be understood if we can further continue our conversations. I've noticed on several occasions that we have agreed with each other on many things without realizing it simply because we use different, ambiguous terms. I guess a good place to start would be to ask: What do you believe makes up *you* as an individual? What do you believe "makes you tick" which is eternal and "real"? What do you believe will happen to both the individual "parts" and the real "parts" after your physical death? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:25:33 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <199701101318.IAA07944@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > On the other hand, the Paradise of Islam doesn't sound too bad, what with the > houries and all (which of the blessings of Allah would you deny?). I may put > on a burnouse and sneak in, if I can remember any of my Arabic. > hou·ri (h¢r¹ź, h”¹rź) noun plural hou·ris 1. A voluptuous, alluring woman. 2. One of the beautiful virgins of the Koranic paradise. [French, from Persian hśrģ, from Arabic hśr, pl. of haurā’, dark-eyed woman.] You spelled houris wrong. There's no "e". BTW, are there any male versions of this? I don't want a virgin, though. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:51:16 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Orcas Island TS Camp - Washington Message-ID: Hi I am interested to know the origins of the Orcas Island TS Camp in Washington State. When it was started and whose idea was it, how the property was purchased and developed and who the leading players who helped it to where it is now. Some historian may have the information. It would be very interesting to know. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:42:27 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <970110114226_679205970@emout15.mail.aol.com> Ann, I don't know if there are any male versions. I never had a reason to ask. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 97 08:51:17 -0800 From: Richard Trump Subject: Two Brief Observations Message-ID: <199701101710.JAA27727@intergate.glenn-co.k12.ca.us> -- [ From: Richard Trump * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- As a newcomer to the list I have mostly been lurking to see how things ran here, now have 2 comments. Re Boston Lodge- I can't say I have learned a huge amount about this issue, but I have seen huge amounts of bandwidth spent on personal infighting. Other philosophically oriented lists I am on would have told the participants to take it to personal e-mail by now, but I guess we have no moderators here (and perhaps little moderation!). Each group seems to have a life and personality of its own. Still, it is hard to just hit the delete key, sort of like slowing down to watch an accident, or viewing a street brawl. Chains and knives anyone? Re Humbleness- Thoa Tran said: >"I am following each brush line of this painting. I am building >slowly each stroke. One day, all these strokes will be a painting, >but for now, I am enjoying each stroke," or to say, "Today, I am >mopping the floor. I am taking my time mopping the floor. I am >not going to think of how the rest of the house needs organizing." > It is alright to be humble by being simple . This was a very basic >Buddhist tenet, but I never truly understood it until now. This, as well as the rest, was very nicely stated. I have a good deal of pruning of roses and fruit trees to do this weekend, which is an art in itself, as well as house cleaning. I will think back on what you said as a good reminder of being in the moment with joy. Pax, Richard Trump *********************************************** Even as Truth, does Error have its lovers. Pythagoras *********************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:01:39 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701101701.JAA29192@proxy1.ba.best.com> Tom: >I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but >perfectly consistent, as I am incapable of such human error. I know you are perfect, Tom. Such perfection never changes. Like Reality with a big "R", you are Tom with a big "T". TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:01:50 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: personal survival Message-ID: <199701101701.JAA29421@proxy1.ba.best.com> Liesel: >Just as an example, I think it's about time that Dora Kunz be >recognized as the inventor of Therapeutic Touch, which is by >now being practiced all over the US. Is there any book on this? >"Unexplained laws of nature", and "human potential", to me, >doesn't stop at ESP. I take it to mean that a Therosophist >tries to keep up with the frontiers of knowledge. In this >spirit, I've read up on, (and tried more or less successfully >to understand) particle physics, Prigogine and entropy, chaos >theory, Jung and his many followers. In the spirit of learning, one can also choose to learn the unexplainable effects of love, spirituality, and instinct. Those are things that would be hard to apply logic and mathematical formulas to. As one can try to develop one's psychic skills, one can also try to develop one's spiritual skills through meditation, etc., and see what miraculous things can come out of it. I may be off the mark, but these things seem to be part of the "unexplainable laws of nature" and "human potential." TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:02:04 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Post-Christian era? Message-ID: <199701101702.JAA29735@proxy1.ba.best.com> Ann: >Many spiritual organizations in the world have so long >operated on a patriarchical mode that they can't see what's >up ahead and that equality, as well as the rise of the >feminine spirit, is the future. That's right. I think it's about time that we change from the patriarchal mode of hierarchy and power to the feminine mode of community and cooperation. >For women who wish to serve, >but not become servile to a male governing body, they may >have a harder time searching for an appropriate group in >which to function. They may very well start their own groups. I would not join a group just because it is headed by a woman, or women exclusive groups. From what I heard, even those groups become afflicted with such things as some head wanting power and control over others. However, I would join a group dedicated to completing one specific activity without needing to spout philosophies or join a group dedicated to sharing philosophies or spirituality in the spirit of community. Of course, community is considered a feminine term. The key is feminine spirit and not feminist group. Basically, I prefer a group dedicated to ALL (women, men, animals, plants, earth, extraterrestrial) life, that works together in a spirit of cooperation and community. Even if that group is coordinated by a man, if he leads it in a spirit of respect to that, then I would not mind joining that group. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 09:01:25 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Humbleness Message-ID: <199701101701.JAA28869@proxy1.ba.best.com> Doss: >I am in the fortunate situation of having to consult with my >clients both with their business and even personal matters. All my tax preparer does is request a bottle of Scotch as tip. I'll have to ask him whether he would also be my therapist. S=o) >Basically I am a doer; sometimes it may get me into trouble. >But when you have the welfare and best interests of other >person or persons or organizations in your heart, and you act, >the act itself the right action and I hope love is >automatically is the driving force. The best thing is to do what feels right in your heart. Who knows what the consequences will be? I wonder how the world would be if everyone sets out one day a week dedicated to helping others. I think it would impact not only the ones being helped, but also the doer. This goes beyond just donating money, but getting involved physically. I have a question, though. Sometimes people perform altruistic acts with no altruistic motives. For example, people often donate to get tax write offs. Is there a tax write off for "doing"? TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 07:23:48 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <199701101804.NAA12986@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > Alan, > Small chickens, originally from Cornwall but imported to America. > Cor·nish (kōr¹nīsh) adjective Of or relating to Cornwall, its people, or the Cornish language. noun 1. The Brythonic language of Cornwall, which has been extinct since the late 18th century. 2. Any of an English breed of domestic fowl often crossbred to produce roasters. Do those little hens qualify as roasters? I thought they were pigeons. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 12:07:41 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <199701101807.NAA14333@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Personal survival > Date: Friday, January 10, 1997 10:46 AM > > Ann, > I don't know if there are any male versions. I never had a reason to ask. > > I would imagine. My heaven is going to look exactly like the Botanic Garden in Glencoe, IL. Only there will be beautiful men scattered around the garden paths asking if I need any help. Actually, that sounds kinda of like this lifetime. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:37:09 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: 3 objects Message-ID: <199701101850.NAA09631@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear TTT, There's a very good book out called "Therapeutic Touch", by Dolores Krieger. It was published by Prentiss Hall. I'm sure the Quest book shops have it, or any other esoteric book store. I very much agree with your thoughtful comments about developing Love, spirituality, and instict. I hadn't thought of that as belonging to the third object, but indeed it does! One *should* develop one's unseen but important potentials. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:43:56 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: post Christianity Message-ID: <199701101857.NAA10833@ultra1.dreamscape.com> I would not mind joining any group run with the cooperation needed to form a true community, whether it's headed by a woman or a man. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:49:35 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: humbleness Message-ID: <199701101903.OAA11885@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >This goes beyond just >donating money, but getting involved physically. I would also advise getting involved mentally, and with empathy. I have also found that as one goes along one develops "Skill in means". The more you know & understand, the better you can help. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:12:39 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: 3 objects Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, liesel f. deutsch wrote: > Dear TTT, > > There's a very good book out called "Therapeutic Touch", by Dolores > Krieger. It was published by Prentiss Hall. I'm sure the Quest book shops > have it, or any other esoteric book store. > > I very much agree with your thoughtful comments about developing Love, > spirituality, and instict. I hadn't thought of that as belonging to the > third object, but indeed it does! One *should* develop one's unseen but > important potentials. I was in a bookstore the other day and saw another book by Dora called "The Human Aura" - a large book with colored paintings of her clairvoyant investigations of numerous people, and interpretations of what the different observed qualities. Looked a bit interesting (I don't know how long its been out - I just glanced at it). -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 13:35:11 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701102135.NAA12433@palrel1.hp.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Why do you think a plant doesn't reincarnate? A plant is composed of > measurable energy - where do you think the energy goes upon death of the > plant? I'm sure a plant has measurable energy - as does anything else in the world, a hot fudge sundae, for example. Is this measurable energy less immediately after it has died? I've read of attempts to find the same energy loss in humans after death and do not find it convincing. > This I find particularly perplexing: "Animals may [reincarnate], but I don't > think they will evolve in consciousness as we do." Would you consider them > evolving at all? If so, into what? What different kind of consciousness do > you think they will evolve into? Although I can't "see" into the millions of years of history, the last few thousand suggest that animals stay substantially the same. Humans appear more impelled to a evolving future. (Yes, I know many old, old, old and very basic evils still remain.) > A quick read of "When Elephants Weep" may change your mind about looking at > animals as our "support." Animals suffer, die, love, fear, grieve, > experience happiness, and make moral decisions. Their corporeal form and > lack of language may be the primary differential. I would agree that animals suffer, die, love, fear, grieve, and experience happiness. I haven't personally seen what look like moral decisions. If I have time, I'll look up "When Elephants Weep". > Many animals have the reasoning capability of infants and children - even of > some adults I know. I am assuming you think infants and children will > 'evolve.' Why wouldn't animals? I can see some similarities in the level of abilities of animals and infants. It still seems like a big leap to say animals evolve. > There is more evidence to support the opposite of what you claim. Plants, > animals, and humans are all imbued with the same basic aspects: > Consciousness, Energy, and Form. Put very simply, if all is of the same > Source, composed of the same elements - upon death, the Consciousness/Energy > would dissipate, but not disappear. The Energy would be drawn into another > form, would it not, driven by the desire to create? Well, I think we make different conclusions about the data. We could get into a discussion of your evidence, but I am satisfied with our stating our opinions - and simply disagreeing. [big snip] > I don't gather Jesus to be implying nature is on a different "footing" than > humans - or, using your gender-exclusive term, "man." Pardon my gender-exclusive term. It is a force of habit. > Ecclesiastes asks a very pointed question: "Who knows if the spirit of man > rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?" It > seems you do. Maybe it's my imagination since over e-mail I can't see your facial expression or hear a tone of voice, but is there an edge to our discussion? I thought we were both offering our thoughts recognizing they are fallible judgments. I don't claim absolute knowledge that animals don't have a psyche - as I hope you don't claim absolute knowledge that they do. > Concluding that the spirit of animals goes upward is less fraught with > disaster than supposing the opposite. Christianity is real good at looking > at the world this way, and thus, we have the exploitation of the planet and > nature. If, from the beginning, Christianity had seen it the other way, the > world would have been a much different place. Recognition of merit results > in management with respect. Anthropocentricism has failed us. I would certainly agree that we have exploited the planet and animals. My remarks in no way mean that I advocate desecrating Nature. >> There is more to life than karma. God is certainly large enough to contain >> the law of sowing and reaping - and then some. There are "gifts" from God >> that we certainly haven't fully earned, but receive out of His Love. > "Gifts?" "Fully earned." Again, this places God smack in the middle of the > 'teacher's pet' problem. As long as we believe what we have or lack is > somehow God's doing and choice, we will forever remain wibble-wobbled by > events. When something goes wrong and we find ourselves unable to cope - > well, guess it was "God's Will," S/He/It was displeased, or simply in a > vinegary mood. If things go well, God has noticed our fine performance and > has rewarded us for making S/He/It happy. > > It makes God's Love seem too human. Well, I meant good gifts. When something goes wrong I do not think it is because God was in a vinegary mood, it is our own doing. God must have *some* human-like traits. S/He (I refuse to use It) did make us. Peace. Titus From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 21:42:36 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Orcas Island TS Camp - Washington Message-ID: <32dab707.145957859@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, "m.k. ramadoss" wrote: >Hi > >I am interested to know the origins of the Orcas Island TS Camp in >Washington State. When it was started and whose idea was it, how the >property was purchased and developed and who the leading players who >helped it to where it is now. I only visited there once, and about the only thing I know about its history has conflicting elements to it. I heard both that it was purchased during the Depression and that it was purchased in the late 1920's. The apple trees are much older than the TS's ownership is. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 21:55:36 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <32dcba90.146862309@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>I believe it was in "The Key to Theosophy" >>that HPB said that "Atman is no individual property of any human being." >But what of Buddhi? Isn't that eternal as well? "Buddhi is the vehicle of atma," whatever that means. But it seems to suggest that it, too, is a temporary form. I think of buddhi as will's lieutenant. All choices are facilitated through the intuition. Opinions are also of the intuition, which, if realized, would cure fundamentalists who believe that the foundation to their belief system is entirely objective. I'd love to have a nickel for every time I have asked a fundamentalist how he or she decided on the foundation of his or her belief system, without his or her realizing that his or her subjective judgment is a necessary part of the foundation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 21:57:57 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <32ddbaf8.146966722@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, Thoa Tran wrote: >Tom: >>I hope you're not implying that I have been anything but >>perfectly consistent, as I am incapable of such human error. > >I know you are perfect, Tom. Such perfection never changes. Like Reality >with a big "R", you are Tom with a big "T". Ye are wise, to have discerned this. Imperfection does not compute. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 14:19:23 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Conditional Immortality Message-ID: <32D6C061.691A@withoutwalls.com> Tom and John wrote: >>>>>Anything that has identity is temporary. Only the homogeneous substance >>>>>that makes up what has identity is eternal. I believe it was in "The Key >>>>>to Theosophy" that HPB said that "Atman is no individual property of any >>>>>human being." >>>>I don't believe there is an unchangeable real me. Individuality is a >>>>temporary illusion. Whatever had a beginning must have an end. >> >>>Can you say for sure that you had a beginning? And can you prove this? >>>Mind you I am not saying of the physical sense, but everything as one. >>>Can you prove that everything that makes up *you* had a beginning? Anything >>that has identity is temporary. Only the homogeneous substancethat makes up >>what has identity is eternal. I believe it was in "The Keyto Theosophy" >>that HPB said that "Atman is no individual property of anyhuman being." >But what of Buddhi? Isn't that eternal as well? I believe you're both a little right. Tom, you're statements relating to Atman (still a conditioned "form", albeit so fine as to be considered universally "spiritual") and unchangeable Reality (The Boundless), I would agree with. But there is still an important point to understand. Atman and it's vehicle Buddhi, are said to last for a kosmic Maha-manvantara. In that sense they have a "limited" duration (cycling in and out of Kosmic pralaya) and because of that are not technically Absolute. (The old Being and Non-Being pair) The re-imbodying Ego that resides in the Causal Body is relatively immortal compared to the incarnate human personality. It was created at the monad's moment of individualization into the human kingdom and lasts (as it develops) for the duration of the monad's journey through the human experience. This is still a very, very long time relatively speaking. In that sense, it is a more "Real" and "enduring" individual you than your mere personality which, although originating in each instance from it's ray, lasts for only one lifetime. It's our task in this human kingdom to become fully conscious in and move our focus of personal identity into rapport (and ultimately identity) with the reimbodying Ego. That's why we cycle through incarnations and why there is a distinction made between the incarnating part of the higher Ego (which forms a personality) and the same Ego in relative fullness on it's own plane. In the due course of time, after the appropriate natural "initiations", the Causal Ego fully matures. Boom! We're out of the human kingdom and onto the next, living fully at the Causal level. No more need to incarnate as personalities, although the power to do so at will (i.e., produce usable vehicles for contact and work on the lower planes) remains. We become ourselves then, Mahatmas. At an even farther point in time (but still within the Maha-manvantara), another natural "initiation" is reached where even the causal ego is dropped and identity moves up again. On and on, until the great cosmic play has reached it's fruition and the whole universe sleeps it's long pralaya, only to rewaken and start time all over again. The question I ask is not what is "real", but rather "Is the activity of your personal lifetime helping you to know and respect your origin?" 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, 10 Jan 1997 15:13:07 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Humbleness Message-ID: <199701102313.PAA01366@proxy3.ba.best.com> Bee Brown: >If you practice living in the moment long enough, >then suddenly, one day the brain becomes silent. I am starting to get a sense of that, although not perfectly. When I first learned about that, I did not understand it. My first thought was, "How am I going to get anything done in that way? I need to constantly think of what I need to do. I need to think of issues so that my mind won't go to waste." When I finally was able to experience and understand that, I felt a most wonderful peace. I hope that I will continue to have little enlightenments like this one. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 15:12:32 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Two Brief Observations Message-ID: <199701102312.PAA00943@proxy3.ba.best.com> Richard Trump: >Other philosophically oriented lists I am on would have told >the participants to take it to personal e-mail by now, but I >guess we have no moderators here (and perhaps little >moderation!). Each group seems to have a life and personality >of its own. Welcome, Richard. The beauty of unmoderation is that you get to see the full range of the participants' insights, prejudiced or not. I feel I learn more from seeing how far an argument could go than from having it hidden from me. I'm not saying that I enjoy fighting. I'm saying it's interesting to observe how we all get involved in an argument. When Tom started off with some debatable words regarding women and domination, I became personally involved in it. When he added to the bruise by stating words that seem to support war, I thought he was part of the downfall of society and wrote in threatening to talk, talk him out. Afterward, I learned I should have applied nonattachment. I should have debated him objectively and let go of being attached to the issue. In a group that is moderated, if something is going on that is hidden, I get a sense of it with an uncomfortable feeling of having a wool pulled over my eyes. After all, real life is gun and roses. However, although Tom is trying to be our "spiritual ally" by pressing our buttons, thereby forcing out what is ingrained in us, I do wish Tom would write in once in a while with something that inspires us instead of causing us to argue. Of course, being involved in an argument is our choice. >Even as Truth, does Error have its lovers. Or another way: Error is part of Truth TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:09:04 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: 3 objects Message-ID: <199701110111.UAA26785@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC > > I was in a bookstore the other day and saw another book by Dora called > "The Human Aura" - a large book with colored paintings of her clairvoyant > investigations of numerous people, and interpretations of what the > different observed qualities. Looked a bit interesting (I don't know how > long its been out - I just glanced at it). > The copy that I have says it's first edition was 1991. I was lucky to get a discounted copy at the Annual Meeting's book sale. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:28:38 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Two Brief Observations Message-ID: <32d8f85a.162168808@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, Richard Trump wrote: >Re Boston Lodge- I can't say I have learned a huge amount about this >issue, >but I have seen huge amounts of bandwidth spent on personal infighting. Fighters can be put into two categories: the immoral initiators and the moral defenders. Those who end wars, regardless of the means of doing so, are far superior to those who start them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 01:54:01 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Post-Christian era? Message-ID: <1v4r4fA5Kv1yEwt+@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199701101702.JAA29735@proxy1.ba.best.com>, Thoa Tran writes >Basically, I prefer a group dedicated to ALL (women, men, >animals, plants, earth, extraterrestrial) life, that works together in a >spirit of cooperation and community. Even if that group is coordinated by a >man, if he leads it in a spirit of respect to that, then I would not mind >joining that group. Me too. Part of the TI ethos - maybe even the motivating force behind it. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 01:40:59 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: In message , JRC writes >the reason I have >credibility is because regardless of what *tone* I speak in in, I do not >make statements without first having evidence to do so. > Regards, -JRC APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION!!! 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, 11 Jan 1997 01:42:50 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <9fwp0VAaAv1yEwvw@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <970110011926_1107469291@emout11.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Alan, >Small chickens, originally from Cornwall but imported to America. > >Chuck the Heretic Oh. I think I'm getting better now. 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, 11 Jan 1997 01:50:07 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Brythonics Message-ID: <5P1ogYAPHv1yEwOC@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199701101804.NAA12986@newman.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >---------- >> From: Drpsionic@aol.com > >> Alan, >> Small chickens, originally from Cornwall but imported to America. >> > Cornish (krnsh) adjective >Of or relating to Cornwall, its people, or the Cornish language. > >noun >1. The Brythonic language of Cornwall, which has been extinct since the >late 18th century. Not entirely. It was still spoken by one old man earlier this century, and although the spoken word is more or less lost, there are those with some idea of it, and the language survives in written form. A modern Cornish pronunciation is being devloped, and a movie has been made in Cornish with English sub-titles! Cornwall has it's own flag - a vertical white cross on a black ground. Wonderful what one can learn just by moving! 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, 11 Jan 1997 03:08:36 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32db022c.164682506@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >In message , >JRC writes >>the reason I have >>credibility is because regardless of what *tone* I speak in in, I do not >>make statements without first having evidence to do so. >> Regards, -JRC > >APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION!!! > >Alan I infer from this that Alan approves of both invective as a means to establish universal brotherhood and of the mountain of evidence that JRC has presented that the TS sued the Boston Lodge because they could not bear the thought of their studying Alice Bailey. Or was Alan being facetious? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 16:30:24 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: conservatism Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970110062449.00690e08@mail.deltanet.com> LunarPitri: ><< Your views of liberal and conservative are much different from mine. My > idea of a liberal is someone who believes that people in government are so > good, and people who are not in government are so helpless without people > in government, that big government is necessary to help people not in > government get by. My idea of a conservative is someone who believes that > the most important issue in politics is that, since power so easily > corrupts, no one has too much power, preferring as decentralized and > limited a government as possible. >> > >I have a hard time figuring out who wrote who to whom, but whoever wrote the >above passage, I say right on. A nicely expressed view of conservatism. I like the quote too. It seems to make a balanced attempt at showing the two viewpoints, rather than comparing the best of one view to the worst of the other. It's usually possible to tell when someone is angry or defensive in their writing, because a strong personal bias will show. Other writings may show a more balanced, philosophical, easy-going approach. We put a little bit of ourselves into our writings, and that includes any inner turmoil going on. I've found it best to wait out my anger, when responding to something offensive, so that it's me, and not my anger writing. I wonder how much of the discussion of politics that we've seen on theos-l is really related to a search for truth, and how much comes from a ritual belittling of people with other views? This is customary in the press and in general company, perhaps, but I might hope we'd be a bit more insightful in theosophical circles. One thing from the quote above seems slightly funny. According to the definition, a theosophical liberal is someone who believes that people in theosophical office are so good, and people who are not in theosophical office are so helpless without them, that big government is necessary to help them get by. And a theosophical conserative is someone who believes that the most important issue in theosophical politics is that, since power so easily corrupts, no one has too much power, preferring as decentralized and limited a government as possible. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:35:08 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > > >APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION!!! > > > >Alan > > I infer from this that Alan approves of both invective as a means to > establish universal brotherhood and of the mountain of evidence that JRC > has presented that the TS sued the Boston Lodge because they could not bear > the thought of their studying Alice Bailey. Or was Alan being facetious? > Perhaps he means that he approves of harshness as a means of answering harshness when nothing else has worked. Considerable evidence was presented on this list some time ago - I simply presented a brief summation of a possible conclusion having read it all and talked to a number of people. The archives are there for anyone to read, various people, including those with views different from HQ, are as accessable by phone as Willamay is - to anyone with the intellectual integrity to examine evidence before publically stating conclusions. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 20:40:16 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Two Brief Observations Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 97, Richard Trump wrote: > > >Re Boston Lodge- I can't say I have learned a huge amount about this >issue, > >but I have seen huge amounts of bandwidth spent on personal infighting. > > Fighters can be put into two categories: the immoral initiators and the > moral defenders. Those who end wars, regardless of the means of doing so, > are far superior to those who start them. > I couldn't agree more ... though it is not always pleasent to have to use harsh means. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 03:44:08 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32dd0af1.166927510@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97 03:17:06 +0000, I wrote: >On Sat, 11 Jan 97, "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: > >>In message , >>JRC writes >>>the reason I have >>>credibility is because regardless of what *tone* I speak in in, I do not >>>make statements without first having evidence to do so. >>> Regards, -JRC >> >>APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION!!! >> >>Alan > >I infer from this that Alan approves of both invective as a means to >establish universal brotherhood and of the mountain of evidence that JRC >has presented that the TS sued the Boston Lodge because they could not bear >the thought of their studying Alice Bailey. Or was Alan being facetious? As an afterthought, even though I stopped reading JRC's posts due to lack of substance, I also recall his saying something about a Nobel Prize in Mathematics, but I don't recall seeing the evidence he brought forth for the existence of such a prize. Maybe missing his presentation is my karma of having better things to do. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 19:53:45 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970110195343.0068c39c@mail.deltanet.com> At 10:17 PM 1/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Sat, 11 Jan 97, "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: > >>In message , >>JRC writes >>>the reason I have >>>credibility is because regardless of what *tone* I speak in in, I do not >>>make statements without first having evidence to do so. >>> Regards, -JRC >> >>APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION!!! >> >>Alan > >I infer from this that Alan approves of both invective as a means to >establish universal brotherhood and of the mountain of evidence that JRC >has presented that the TS sued the Boston Lodge because they could not bear >the thought of their studying Alice Bailey. Or was Alan being facetious? > > I have a few comments from the sidelines. Since I don't have my armor on, I'll have to duck, after saying these few words. -- Eldon Tucker ---- What I've noticed over several years is that JRC responds with personal criticisms to people that hold strong viewpoints that he disagrees with. Bee Brown once posted the idea that she heard from Joy Mills about how people visiting theosophical groups were either tourists or pilgrims, and JRC let her have it. I've faced all sorts of personal charges because of views I've expressed. And I could look over the archives and find the names of others. JRC is cheered on by people that agree with him. A knife will certainly get attention and win respect while it's waved about, but arguments should really be won by the brilliance and seductive beauty of the words, by the clearly sensed presence of Truth, rather than by the ringing silence left after biting, hurting words. John: I can tell by your writing that you think that you're doing a good thing, but I think that you're simply unaware of the results of this type of communication. You're not responding "in kind" to others that are unbalanced, acting as a clever guru. At least as I see it, you're acting out of habit, out of reflex, perhaps using techniques you've learned in your "hard ball real-world state and federal politics". This approach does allow one the power to manipulate and control a group, but I don't think that is your intention. Tom: The message I see in the current conflict with you is that you need to refine your methods of expressing yourself in writing, so as to not bring up barriers leading to breaking down of communication (like in the political discussions). There's room for some give on both sides of the discussions, including liberal politics, the politically correct, etc., and some of us may cringe at the dogmatic assertions being made *on both sides* of the issues. You can lend some balance from the conservative side of the discussion, if you express yourself with skill. (And that skill comes from practice, so don't give up.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 03:59:33 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <32e10f73.168082308@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 10 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>The problem I have with free will is that it is impossible to choose an >>alternative which is regarded as anything but the best alternative, and I >>don't see how perception of the value of alternatives is subject to free >>will. >I can agree with you only if you using "best" as a relative term. What *I* >think is best is not necessarily what you think is best. Yes. That's how I meant it. There is the real best alternative, there is my perception of the best alternative, and there is your perception of the best alternative. >if you believe that >there is no permanent you, no permanent individuality, then free will would >seem to be a senseless proposition. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is senseless. We were discussing free will at our lodge this last Wednesday, and when someone asked what the definition of free will was, I drew a blank. I am quite sure there are limits to its freedom, but that doesn't make it non-existent. Some people said it could exist without being conscious, but I don't see how that could be. The idea that individuals choose such things as their parents and place of birth doesn't make sense to me. >I'd like to understand your point of view much more clearly, for there are a >lot of fine points that need to be understood if we can further continue our >conversations. I've noticed on several occasions that we have agreed with >each other on many things without realizing it simply because we use >different, ambiguous terms. Most apparent philosophical disagreements are probably predominantly semantic misunderstandings. Everyone speaks a unique language. >What do you believe makes up *you* as an individual? The gospel according to Besant and Leadbeater says that individuality is atma-buddhi-manas, which carries over from life to life and reincarnates. They said it. I believe it. That settles it. >What do you believe "makes you tick" which is eternal and "real"? I don't see how anything except what is purely abstract could be eternal and real. What makes me tick is the same thing that makes everyone and everything else tick. It is not peculiar to me. >What do you believe will happen to both the individual "parts" and the real >"parts" after your physical death? The only thing that is real is what makes up all parts. No one's physical death affects what is real, except to rearrange it. But that does not make physical death special, since what is real is constantly rearranging, anyway. I believe that individuality begins when an animal graduates into the human kingdom, survives death, reincarnates in every lifetime, and ends at the graduation out of the human kingdom. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 04:11:51 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <32e310ca.168425315@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, "Eldon B. Tucker" wrote: >I have a few comments from the sidelines. Since I don't have my >armor on, I'll have to duck, after saying these few words. You criticized me without attacking me. I would never respond to that approach in a way that anyone would need to duck. >Tom: The message I see in the current conflict with you is that you need >to refine your methods of expressing yourself in writing, so as to not >bring up barriers leading to breaking down of communication (like in the >political discussions). I am always open to constructive, impersonal criticism. I like to give it, too. Not only am I not a perfect writer, but no two people speak the identical language in the first place. >There's room for some give on both sides of the discussions, When personal attacks begin, "discussion" ends. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 21:16:33 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > As an afterthought, even though I stopped reading JRC's posts due to lack > of substance, I also recall his saying something about a Nobel Prize in > Mathematics, but I don't recall seeing the evidence he brought forth for > the existence of such a prize. Maybe missing his presentation is my karma > of having better things to do. > Curious that you keep answering posts you haven't read. I recall your saying some time ago that there was supporting evidence for your claim that most women in marriages desired "leadership" from the man. And despite numerous requests from several different people, have yet to see a scrap of data supporting such a claim. I'll keep responding in kind to every shot you take at me Tom - note, *responding* - the moment you begin speaking with the respect and elevated tone you claim "Theosophists" ought to, I will be most happy to reply in kind. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 04:25:34 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: conservatism Message-ID: <32e615e6.169732805@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, "Eldon B. Tucker" wrote: >One thing from the quote above seems slightly funny. According to the >definition, a theosophical liberal is someone who believes that people >in theosophical office are so good, and people who are not in theosophical >office are so helpless without them, that big government is necessary to >help them get by. And a theosophical conservative is someone who believes >that the most important issue in theosophical politics is that, since >power so easily corrupts, no one has too much power, preferring as >decentralized and limited a government as possible. How centralized a government should be depends on the size of the society. A family of four should be highly centralized and cooperative, since organization of such a small number of people is relatively easy. The costs of organizing a nation of tens of millions of people are proportionally greater, and so it should be more decentralized and competitive. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 04:41:42 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: subjective reality Message-ID: <32e716f9.170007594@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, Thoa Tran wrote: >I've always wondered about what the reality of anything is. To say that it is >all maya in a dismissive tone, is to deny that all of our reality is an important >part of Reality. The difference between illusory and imaginary should be kept in mind. That only what does not change is fully real does not mean that constantly changing forms are imaginary. >For example, those who eat meat should see the cow being killed in >front of them. It's easy to eat something sanitized in your meat deli, but >one should also realize where it's coming from. Abstractly, one realize >that it came from a cow. However, one should see that it takes the death >and the bleeding of a cow for that steak to sit in one's refrigerator. All life must support itself by killing. I visited the camp at Orcas Island once, and they had a sign outside that said "Ahimsa." It seemed strange that they also used disinfectant to kill bacteria. >A woman I knew had to change the channel everytime an ad showing >emaciated children with bloated stomach appears on the T.V. Another >woman thinks that all people who have ever smoked should be denied >insurance benefits. And of course, we often hear from people like Jesse >Helms that people with AIDS should have low priority because it was the >result of their immoral acts. The first woman should spend a week helping >feed emaciated bloated children. The second woman should spend a week >tending to the lung cancer patient, watching them in pain. Jesse Helms >should do likewise. The responsibility for compassion is universal. Those who smoke are responsible to have compassion for those who breathe their smoke, and for the people who have to foot the bill for their medical bills. Those who have AIDS due to their own irresponsible behavior are responsible to have compassion on those to whom they gave their disease. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 23:33:47 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Boston Lodge etc. Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970111053347.00674ba8@mail.eden.com> Hi, here is the copy of the letter I promised to post a couple of days ago. I faxed it to John Algeo over a year ago. Till today, he or any one else in Wheaton administration has responded to it. I am wondering why. If documented facts are made available to all of us, then anyone interested in taking the time can objectively evaluate the facts and can make up their own mind. No one should be afraid of facts and Truth. All will be winners. I am a believer that Truth and openness will ultimately Triumph, even though it may take time. In this connection I am repeatedly reminded of the famous 1900 letter where KH stated "MISLEADING SECRECY HAS GIVEN THE DEATH BLOW TO NUMEROUS ORGANIZATIONS." Less secrecy and more openness can only help any organization. MKR ============================================================= December 1, 1995 7:10 AM John Algeo National President Theosophical Society in America P. O. Box 270 Wheaton IL 60189-0270 Dear Bro. Algeo: Last evening, when I attended the San Antonio TS Lodge meeting I saw your letter of November 16, 1995 to the Lodge Presidents to which was attached Brant Jackson's memo to the Atlanta Lodge members on the proposed bylaws. In his memo he had referred to the fact that Boston Lodge recently sold its property and also similar sale had taken place a number of times in other lodges across the world. I am very interested to know what really took place in the Boston Lodge. I will highly appreciate it, if you can provide me with details surrounding the Boston Lodge along with copies of any documents you may have at Olcott. Also if you have details of any other similar situation, I would like to hear. I am also hearing that the Canadian Section and Denmark Section lost their TS Charters from Adyar in the recent past. I would like you to confirm if the information is true. If so, I will highly appreciate it if you can provide details along with copies of any documentation you may have at Olcott. In order to speed up the communication, I will highly appreciate it, if you can respond by FAX instead of Snailmail. With respectful regards Yours fraternally, M K Ramadoss ================ end of message ======================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 05:37:36 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Boston Lodge etc. Message-ID: <32e92695.174004047@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, M K Ramadoss wrote: >Hi, here is the copy of the letter I promised to post a couple of days ago. > > I faxed it to John Algeo over a year ago. Till today, he or any one >else in Wheaton administration has responded to it. I am wondering why. Sometimes persistence pays off. Did you make further requests for the information? Might the information be available elsewhere? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 23:49:09 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Humbleness Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970111054909.006edea8@mail.eden.com> At 12:36 PM 1/10/97 -0500, you wrote: >Doss: >>I am in the fortunate situation of having to consult with my >>clients both with their business and even personal matters. > >All my tax preparer does is request a bottle of Scotch as tip. I'll have to >ask him whether he would also be my therapist. S=o) > Since most of my clients are in business, they need fairly frequent and continuing consulting on business and tax matters year round. So it the line between business and personal is quite blurred and hence I am usually used as a sounding board as well as to provide some objective feedback. As for a bottle of Scotch as a tip, in my situation there are two problems. First I do not drink (I know too much about my clients and inebriated I may disclose sensitive confidential matters which will ruin my livelyhood.) Second I need my clients' money badly. If any one needs to talk to me on business/tax or any other matter, send me a e-mail and let me see if I can help. I can also be reached on a toll free numbers (in continental US) 7 days of the week/24 hrs a day. Of course if you are a subscriber to theos-l, it is a free fringe benefit!!! Spread the word. We need more subscribers to theos-l. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 22:42:03 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701110642.WAA07033@proxy1.ba.best.com> Tom, That's it. I'm going to call you M.P.(Mary Poppins) from now on, since you are practically perfect. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 22:43:01 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Personal Survival Message-ID: <199701110643.WAA07708@proxy1.ba.best.com> Ann: > would imagine. My heaven is going to look exactly like the >Botanic Garden in Glencoe, IL. Only there will be beautiful >men scattered around the garden paths asking if I need any >help. Ooh, directions to Glencoe, IL, please. TTT S=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Jan 1997 22:42:53 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: humbleness Message-ID: <199701110642.WAA07571@proxy1.ba.best.com> Liesel: >I would also advise getting involved mentally, and with >empathy. I have also found that as one goes along one >develops "Skill in means". The more you know & understand, >the better you can help. I agree. However, good actions have resulted from non-altruistic motives. For example, a corporation will join in helping out with a cause (donations, activities) with a motive of P.R. for the company. (Actually, that is not totally correct. Sometimes a company's involvement in a cause was started by an individual dedicated to a cause. However, that individual had to do quite a bit of pleading to the bosses to get the company involved. The bosses automatically considers the effect on the company from getting involved with this cause.) Some corporations have refused to join in events such as AIDS Walk due to the controversial aspects of AIDS, although now it is more politically correct by support from actors. Several charitable organizations have played up the marketing aspect as an incentive for involvement. As a thought, if there were huge incentives for a company to lay aside one day a week dedicated to a cause (all staff), what a huge difference that would make in the world. I'm sure the staff would love having that one day to get away from the office. However, since a company can lose much money from one day, no incentive would be worth it, monetarily. That idea goes on the list of If This Was an Ideal World. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:02:36 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <32f23a3d.179012823@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Thoa Tran wrote: >Tom, >That's it. I'm going to call you M.P.(Mary Poppins) from now on, since you >are practically perfect. I am impressed with such insight at such a young age. But I'm not sure if I can accept the word "practically" as a qualifier. It tarnishes the word it is describing. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 02:09:39 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <970111020938_1593234511@emout16.mail.aol.com> Thoa Tran writes--> That's right. I think it's about time that we change from the patriarchal mode of hierarchy and power to the feminine mode of community and cooperation. Of course, community is considered a feminine term. The key is feminine spirit and not feminist group. Richard Ihle writes--> I need a clarification. As a result of a previous series of postings, I came away with the distinct impression that it was the general opinion of Kym and the majority of the other women on the list that making broad gender associations was not such a good thing. The reason for this, I thought Kym was pointing out, was because these associations are often just historical/cultural/social/mythological etc. overlays which are not really based on any valid, fundamental differences between men and women. For example, Kym objected strongly and immediately when she mistakenly thought I subscribed to the old notion that the principle of "pattern-following" could somehow be associated with the feminine. Thus, I was somewhat surprised to see no objection from Kym or anyone else when ~community~ and ~cooperation~ suddenly showed up as "feminine" terms. (Also, I was sort of thinking that ~masculine~ rather than ~patriarchal~ was the intended association with ~hierarchy~ and ~power~, since ~matriarchal~ and not ~feminine~ would have been the conventional pairing). What's the story here? I can easily see why women would object to someone asserting that ~initiative~, for example, is one of the "masculine principles"; however, I do not understand why the same objection is not made about ~cooperation~ being naturally associated with the feminine. Tell me how I should be thinking about these things and I will undoubtedly cooperate (I've been married). . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 00:41:18 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > What I've noticed over several years is that JRC responds with personal > criticisms to people that hold strong viewpoints that he disagrees with. > Bee Brown once posted the idea that she heard from Joy Mills about how > people visiting theosophical groups were either tourists or pilgrims, > and JRC let her have it. I've faced all sorts of personal charges because > of views I've expressed. And I could look over the archives and find > the names of others. JRC is cheered on by people that agree with him. We've spoken of this before Eldon. My writing style, from your point of view, often makes "personal" charges. Your writing style, from my point of view, often very specifically refers to individuals, but does so much more smoothly, and from my point of view, often passive-agressively. If personal conflicts are to happen, I much prefer them to be overt rather than buried. But we see the process of growth very differently. This last paragraph of yours, for instance, is, on the surface, quite measured and impersonal ... however what is embedded in it? I might say a very distorted portrayal, that seems to be motivated by the fact that a few people have actually taken my side here - something you've commented on before. You can also look through the archives and find numerous people who have "personally attacked" one another - in fact different pairs of people have battled over the years of the list. You could also find numerous occaisions when I've agreed with and had quite harmonious conversations with the same people I've at other times fought with. Including you and Bee. I might also point out that you have been "cheered on" on many occaisions by people who agree with you ... is there something wrong with this? In fact the norm on the list whenever there is a subject of deep division is for two or three people (usually those with the time and inclination to write) to be the principle spokespersons for different perspectives, and for others to write short supportive posts for whomever best sums up their own perspective. While appearing measured and impersonal, is your post not perhaps your way of "cheering" Tom on? I notice it began with a very specific sort of portrayal of me, but seemed not to mention the *very* personal attacks, by Tom, on several different people before I even entered the thread. I would be most happy to provide the quotes and their dates if you'd like. > > A knife will certainly get attention and win respect while it's waved > about, but arguments should really be won by the brilliance and seductive > beauty of the words, by the clearly sensed presence of Truth, rather than > by the ringing silence left after biting, hurting words. > We've discussed this before as well. I suppose in my view, the words "harmony" and "compassion" and "truth" are not things even possible - save in extremely distorted ways - at the personality level. In fact often to arrive at them *spiritually*, the appearance of great conflict is required at the personality layers. Actual growth and evolution is bound to be uncomfortable and extremely volatile - but ultimately whether the *personality* gives the appearance of deep compassion or wild rage *makes no difference* ... IT is not the thing spiritual growth is concerned with. And this, I believe, is somewhat of a dilemma Theosophy has never fully addressed - while words like "brotherhood" and "compassion" were continually used by HPB, and the Adepts, they were clearly speaking of things *other* than what the *personality* understands by those words ... as if you actually look at their words and behaviour, HPB had emotional rages that make anything on this list look positively tame, and the Masters in the ML had no hesitation in using language often very personal and severe. At the *surface* level, for instance, many of those priests KH boldly stated to be the cause of 2/3's of the *evils* present on the planet would *appear* to be much more "compassionate" than the Masters. Their compassion at times has an almost *ruthless* quality about it ... as has virtually nothing to do with modern culture's notions of being "nice" (and sometimes I believe the two are assumed to be the same thing ... but neither HPB or the Masters could be considered *nice*). > John: I can tell by your writing that you think that you're doing a good > thing, but I think that you're simply unaware of the results of this type > of communication. You're not responding "in kind" to others that are > unbalanced, acting as a clever guru. Perhaps I am more aware of what I am doing, and the results, than you are. A couple of things ... first - I have no illusions, nor desire, to be a "clever guru" ... in fact I don't believe in gurus at all (and I fear I may have to say that much of your writing appears to be in the mode you accuse me of ... no? The next two paragraphs to me and Tom have at least a slight tone of "teacher to pupil", do they not?). Second, and most important ... please look at the development of the conversation. I read Tom's posts for a few days before saying *anything*. He began with statements almost custom designed to stir people up emotionally ... whether intentionally or not, he introduced ideas that, for instance, are identical to those used as *excuses* by men who have beaten their wives and lovers. Many men still have little understanding of how *terrible* a thing abuse is. How its possibility darkens the lives of half our species - how, for instance, my experience of something as simple as walking home alone after dark is *very* different, and far freer, than that of a woman doing so; how the *justifications* for abuse have been around for centuries ... and only very recently have women decided that even if men don't like it, they are going to *hear* about the issue ... that *no one* is going to make comments about men being dominant over women - comments that were made for centuries with utter impunity - without catching a whippin' big pile of flack about it. To Tom, it seemed merely a matter of totally intellectual concepts ... but to literally countless women through the centuries words very similar to those he spoke were a matter of life and death. While I in no way believe Tom has beaten anyone, his utter lack of understanding of why some of the women on the list may have responded more vehemently than he wished was at first suprising - but when, instead of trying to understand, he then *continued* to make those statements, became more rigid in them, and used the increasing reactions as *ammunition* ... saying at one point that the relative emotionality of women was yet *another* area in which men were "superior" to women ... and his rhetoric was such that whenever someone tried to argue with him, he blasted them. I chose, on a whim, and because I had time, to engage him ... to reflect his energy and magnify it to the point that it now really *is* absurd (-:). With everyone else he went after ... he kept responding at them until they just plain gave up and decided it wasn't worth it. I simply chose to very delibrately do the same to him. All of those that said (in what he considered "emotional" terms or not) that he should re-examine his ideas or moderate his tone were met with hostility ... often quite personal. (Eldon, as *deeply* as you and I have disagreed about things, would either of us ever even *conceived* of saying that the other was a hypocrite for claiming to be a Theosophist?) Please also, notice a couple of things ... in going after him so delibrately, I wound up being an "attractor" (as the chaos theorists say) - the viscious energy he directed at several different people (and I will give you examples if you wish, but I respect your intelligence too much to believe you'd argue that he hasn't attacked anyone) is now solely directed at myself, and he *has* actually significantly moderated his tone and become far more careful about how he presents his thoughts. I am not in any way saying I am solely, or even chiefly responsible for this, but before you judge whether the "effects" of what I chose to do are or are not negative ... wait till they play out fully. > At least as I see it, you're acting > out of habit, out of reflex, perhaps using techniques you've learned in > your "hard ball real-world state and federal politics". This approach > does allow one the power to manipulate and control a group, but I don't > think that is your intention. Well, you certainly are free to view it that way if you wish. Subjectively, it is by no means habit or reflex, but (whether you believe it or not) the dispassionate use of emotional force. Tom was, from my view, using quite developed writing skills to almost beat his perspective into people. Perhaps you evaluate his words differently because you *agree* with his position politically, and were possibly even somewhat happy to see someone bashing feminism and what you continue to misname "political correctness". In fact he *was* for a time almost completely controlling the tone of the group, and appeared, in several different mini-arguments, to have "won" (and not, I might add, by inducing a "calm and beautiful sense of the truth"). To some degree, *everyone* manipulates and controls the tone of the group - is that not, to some degree, what your post is trying to do? To tell us your opinion that we should both *change the way we post*? I see nothing wrong with this. Every group has a group energy that develops, and every person contributes to it. You contribute in a way that you consider best for the group - and so do I. You may not agree with how I operate ... but Tom initially introduced an extremely divisive energy - several people suggested in kind words that he alter his presentation, and he did not. I used harsher tactics, and now that energy is solely directed at me, is contained, and when he finally gets tired of the game, the negative atmosphere will have disappeared completely ... as the minute he stops, I will too. Even now, probably almost no one is actually reading our posts anymore (-:). While I don't personally feel as though you really understand what I am trying to do, and don't at all grasp the perspective from which I do it (as I don't understand yours), still, I appreciate the effort you put into writing ... and if this post seemes to completely disagree with you, please do also take it as a sign of the respect and esteem I hold for you that I'd even trouble myself to try to explain what I am doing. We probably will never agree - but from my point of view I couldn't imagine the list being nearly as rich or interesting were you not on it. Kind Regards, -JRC PS. BTW, I read the last on-line publication ... well, some of it anyway, .. and thought the article about geological time-periods was quite interesting. While clearly very basic, its the kind of approach I'd like to see more of - in fact, I'd kinda like to see a thread about it begun on theos-l ... if you've got the time ..... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Jan 11 04:00:13 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Two Brief Observations Message-ID: <199701110900.EAA28517@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Fri, 10 Jan 97, Richard Trump wrote: > >>Re Boston Lodge- I can't say I have learned a huge amount about this >>>issue,but I have seen huge amounts of bandwidth spent on personal >infighting. >Fighters can be put into two categories: the immoral initiators and the >moral defenders. Those who end wars, regardless of the means of doing so, >are far superior to those who start them. And those who start wars to end wars are...? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Jan 11 04:02:03 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701110902.EAA28598@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Sat, 11 Jan 97, "Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: >>JRC writes >>>the reason I have >>>credibility is because regardless of what *tone* I speak in in, I do not >>>make statements without first having evidence to do so. >>> Regards, -JRC >> >>APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION!!! >> >>Alan > >I infer from this that Alan approves of both invective as a means to >establish universal brotherhood and of the mountain of evidence that JRC >has presented that the TS sued the Boston Lodge because they could not bear >the thought of their studying Alice Bailey. Or was Alan being facetious? Alan? Facetious? hehe. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat Jan 11 04:06:26 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701110906.EAA28743@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >As an afterthought, even though I stopped reading JRC's posts due to lack >of substance, I also recall his saying something about a Nobel Prize in >Mathematics, but I don't recall seeing the evidence he brought forth for >the existence of such a prize. Maybe missing his presentation is my karma >of having better things to do. It has already been stated that there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics. It has also been looked into and was found to be true. JRC's point was not that there was a nobel prize, he was simply using the nobel prize to make a point. Did anyone ever ask him to bring any evidence forth? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 01:41:17 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: re: ad hominem attacks Message-ID: <9701110941.AA03934@toto.csustan.edu> KPJ >JHE makes public reference to a private matter which I suspect >the persons named in his post would wish to remain so. JHE The denigration of other people through gossip and innuendos always seems to be a "private matter," and the victim is the last to know about it. As long as I can remember, I have felt uncomfortable about "private" accusations, trials and condemnations that go on behind people's backs. It is an art that many people have perfected--so called Theosophists unfortunately are not exceptions. I have known many people who have been driven from the TS because of this nasty activity. I have even seen it happen in Lodges. Someone either becomes a threat to someone else, or the party line, or just becomes a scapegoat to draw attention away from the real problems. The gossip runs hot and heavy while the victim is left in ignorance. Usually the victim senses that something is going on but no one will give him/her a straight story. Instead, the victim is treated like a leper. "After all, it is a private matter" they will say. "The accusers do not wish to be known." "We don't want this to become public." What they are really saying is: "we are out to denigrate you with gossip, and we don't want this to come out in the open because someone might expose it for the dirty game that it is." As for the persons named in my last post, they have been mentioned before on theos-l. I said nothing in my post that would link them to your "private matter" if you had not informed your readers of it. Now you have, so the karma is on you. Paul, I think a better approach would have been to follow HPB's guidelines in the ES Instructions: Do not listen to gossip. When you hear it anyway, let it stop with you. If you had done this in the first place, we would not be having this conversation now. A Theosophical explanation that fits the facts as I observe them, is that Gossip creates a thought form that grows more powerful as each new person feeds it with their emotional effluvia. Eventually, it becomes a destructive and ugly entity of its own that gets out of control. My hope is that, my acknowledgement here of your publicly announced "private matter" will end the further nourishing of your little monster, but expose it for the flapdragon that it really started out to be. KPJ >When I confronted JHE about this he vociferously denied it. JHE When you first "confronted" me with your story, you had already tried and condemned me. You did not ask for my side, but informed me of my alleged crime and of your alleged evidence. That was not a confrontation, but a condemnation. There is a difference. KPJ >Q. What do JHE, Daniel Caldwell, and John Algeo have in common? >A. They are all people whose friendship I tried hard to secure >or maintain, who are thanked for small favors in the >acknowledgments of my last book, received free copies of both of >them, and have become implacable enemies for reasons that I >think have more to do with their belief systems than with me. JHE I received a courtesy copy of your last book from SUNY and I thanked you for it. For what it is worth, I never received a copy of TMR from you. Rather, I purchased my copy directly from SUNY. I bought several copies at the time and sold them through my mail order book business. It seems strange to me that you believe that I tell people "behind your back" not to read your book. In reality it is plain to anyone following my comments on theos-l that I encourage people to read it. You are also already aware that I wrote a friendly review for NEW PERSPECTIVES (you acknowledged receiving it and gave it a "B-" here on theos-l), and I sell your book through my mail order business. Doesn't your perception of this "private matter" seem strange to you in light of the above undeniable and demonstrable facts? Think about it. I do not regard myself to be your enemy, and I'm sorry that you regard me as such. How did this start? Is it because I ha