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 have publicly commented in the past that I am not convinced of your thesis in TMR and have given my reasons? Ever since, it appears that you have regarded me as your "enemy." Frankly, I think this anger of yours against Algeo, Caldwell and myself is your problem, not mine. If I regarded you as an enemy, I would not have invited you to visit and stay with us during your sojourn to California. This is something else you might do well to think about. What do you know of my "belief system"? How do you think my "belief system" accounts for the very strange behavior you accuse me of? Perhaps what Algeo, Caldwell and myself really have in common is not that we are your "enemies," but rather friends who you have declared to be enemies because we have made it publicly known that we are not convinced of your thesis in TMR. I hope this ends all of this silly crap. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 01:44:36 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu> h39 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 03:30:41 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <199701111130.DAA20623@proxy1.ba.best.com> 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. TTT: Wel-l-l-l...you got me. Please go back into my paragraphs and do a search of the words patriarchal and feminine, and delete them. First, Triaist man got the job, and now a woman is making the same mistake as a man. I can smell that equality! Sh-h-h, don't tell the word police where I am.... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 03:30:52 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: subjective reality Message-ID: <199701111130.DAA20692@proxy1.ba.best.com> Mary Poppins: >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. Constantly changing forms are real, not imaginary. Changing forms are impermanent, therefore illusory. >All life must support itself by killing. The validity of that statement depends on the definition of life. If it is true that all life must support itself by killing, then as humans, we have the choice to limit the extent of the killing we do. Some of us uses Lysol and Raid, but will not eat meat. >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. The responsibility for compassion is universal. For those we feel responsible for their plight, we can apply forgiveness. We can also consider the extent that they deserve the consequence. For example, we can forgive a smoker for having had an addictive and unhealthy habit. We can feel that they do not deserve the denial of insurance because of their habits. We can also feel that anybody gravely ill should have the best medical attention possible. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:41:50 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: conservatism Message-ID: <199701111357.IAA14515@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Eldon B. Tucker > > 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. > I've never associated theosophy with politics. To me, a theosophical liberal is one who is more open to including other teachings under the umbrella of Theosophy, while a theosophical consertive has narrowed down what is theosophical to a few books and teachings. Most likely, the ones they agree with. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:47:54 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <199701111357.IAA14526@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Eldon B. Tucker > > 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.) > Eldon: You are being extremely Virgoan here. You want these people, and perhaps the whole list, to respond to each other in a manner that you see to be appropriate. Whether you are right or not in your criticism, they are not necessarily going to see it your way. I can appreciate your commentary on communication, but perhaps it is wisdom to let JRC, Tombo or anyone else work it out for themselves via the arena of the Internet. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:07:44 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32D7D6F0.2C84@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > 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. It had to happen someday; I agree with you. At the New York Lodge, there is no problem with discussion of other Theosophical movements, or even their presentation on our public program (we used to have ULT people speaking here on a regular basis, for example; it was the ULT, not us, who stopped doing it). We have among our membership a man who has been with an Alice Bailey group for 20 years (and still is), who has given presentations to the members. Certainly, a lot of people in the TSA would be upset of a TSA Lodge or study group dedicated itself to become effectively a member of a different theosophical organization (and might consider revoking the charter if they forbade discussion of the material, like at least one theosophical organization does), but I know of a number of Lodges and study groups who concentrate on Bailey or Steiner or Judge without any problems. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:19:27 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Cliques and enclosures Message-ID: <199701111819.KAA16908@palrel1.hp.com> I haven't really followed the Boston Lodge controversy and so won't comment on it. I am not really a member of the TS anyway. But it does remind me of a very interesting faculty of human beings: enclosure making. Enclosures appear in nations, families, organizations and in an individual. They enable a particularizing identity to form and also enable a person, family or organization to hear their own creations reflected back to them. An enclosure can become a sacred space or a tomb. A protective enclosure keeps out thoughts or influences which are harmful, but negative enclosures become festering wounds. In an organization, negative enclosures become cliques. In the beginning, everyone in a clique agrees with one another. In the end, no one agrees with anyone and it ruptures. I found M K Ramadoss's quote of Master KH very interesting: "Misleading secrecy has given the death blow to numerous organizations." This happened in my former spiritual home - despite the late founder's warnings. Public shaming and the use of offices for self-aggrandizement grew to insane proportions. The amazing thing was that there were very intelligent people who became perverted. It was a great education for me, but the unfortunate result was that we became a spiritually lifeless shell. The shell persists to this day, but I just couldn't stay. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 11:22:35 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: conservatism Message-ID: On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Eldon B. Tucker 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. >> > > > >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. > It probably only seems balanced if one is a conservative. I know few liberals who would say people are "helpless" without big government ... and the definition of "conservative" actually comes much closer to defining libertarianism than modern conservatism. Modern conservatism has become, for instance, quite dominated (in practice) by conservative Christians ... and they don't want less centralized government ... they want centralized governemnt to support different things than it is now. In the economic realm they want less restrictions on business, but in the area of social and cultural issues, they are quite public about their intention to use government to control behaviour. A genuinely balanced reformulation of that statement might be to say "there are considerable areas in which as a people we face challenges and problems, and liberals are more inclined to believe that - in some cases - government is the best tool to use to provide the solution, while conservatives are more inclined to believe that - in some cases - the private market is the best tool". But again, modern politics is extremely complex, and I wonder whether any single paragraph can make an accurate statement. Money now dominates both parties almost completely, and when either side's philosophy comes down to being applied in practice, in legislation, it is the opinions of big-money contributors rather than philosophy that generally determines outcome. > 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. It would be funny if the original definition were accurate. However the other part of the definition that makes no sense is the statement that conservatives don't want anyone to have too much power - what does this mean? *Both* parties want power - the Republican party clearly wanted not just both houses of Congress, but the presidency as well - as did the Democrats. "Decentralization" and limited government philosophies are things some politicians preach, but certainly not things they apply to *themselves*. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:35:47 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32D7DD83.7C6E@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > 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. You can say that lemons are purple, but that won't make it true. Language is a tool for representing reality in symbols, by general agreement. Mathematics, as well, is a tool for representing reality in symbols. Now for example, take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking about temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. Even the concept of addition is not constant: what do you get when you add 3 to January 2, 1997? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:37:54 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32D7DE02.37D1@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > 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. You are saying that 2 + 2 = 5. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:42:36 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: the limits of free will Message-ID: <32D7DF1C.1E75@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > 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. There are societal standards, which tend to be so ingrained into people that they don't even know there can be another way. In other words, prejudice. > > 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. Consider Aleister Crowley's, "Do what Thou Wilt, let that be the Whole of the Law." Without proper understanding of intent, then that statement says, "Do whatever you want". A proper understanding of intent shows the sentence to be a statement of the obvious. Or, if the intent is genuine then the results will be correct. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:49:54 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: 3 objects Message-ID: <32D7E0D2.1190@sprynet.com> JRC wrote: > 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). I just heard a Dora story the other day. Johnny Kunz wanted to do some wiring, but misplaced one of the instruments. So he asked Dora which way the electricity was flowing. Dora complained that she knew nothing about such things, and Johnny said, "It doesn't matter. Just tell me which way it's flowing." Dora moved her finger across the wall, and said, "That way! Now leave me alone!". She was, of course, absolutely right. I have been trying like crazy to get her together with James Randi, but she will hear nothing of it. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:56:18 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: The War between the Bostons Message-ID: <32D7E252.2ED8@sprynet.com> 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. However, like many was, the actual battles are about a much larger issue. The largest theosophical organization, The Theosophical Society, represented in the United States by the TSA, has been accused of being a repressive organization, hypocritcally trying to stamp out the truth while claiming a dedication for the Truth. Some painted as the major villains are friends of some of us here. We are being told that we belong to an organization which is far different and far more sinister than the one in which we see ourselves. In other words, those who are happy to be members of the TSA are effectively being called repressive or happy slaves. Being neither, we try to correct the situation. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:11:15 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <970111141115_373683443@emout20.mail.aol.com> Ann, The Botanic Garden is much too peaceful for me. I want things I can blow up, and I don't mean balloons. So I think I'll create something combining Valhalla, the Paradise of Islam and the landscape of Doom. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:11:19 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HE'S BAAAAAACK!!! Message-ID: <970111141118_780833473@emout05.mail.aol.com> Ann, No, the pigeons are people who can subsist on chickens that small. :) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:11:24 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: conservatism Message-ID: <970111141124_1011218291@emout07.mail.aol.com> Eldon, And us Theosphical Libertarians do our own thing and don't care who mows the grass at Olcott as long as they stay out of our hair. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:20:45 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32d7e78e.191962@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >> >> 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. > > You are saying that 2 + 2 = 5. I don't see how my statement does that. Philosophy seeks truth about the non-physical universe. Science seeks truth about the physical universe. Are you saying that there is no objective philosophical truth to seek? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:31:36 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32d8e924.598737@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >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? There are unicorns on a planet 800 trillion light years away from us, which is made of green cheese. Since no one has yet asked me for evidence to back this up, I can now also say that I don't make statements unless I have evidence to back them up. If I can think of 3 statements off the top of my head that JRC has made which contradict his statement that he has evidence to back up what he says, how many more examples could I find if I thought it was worth my time and effort to actually research what he has said? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:44:52 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: subjective reality Message-ID: <32d9eada.1036489@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Thoa Tran wrote: >Mary Poppins: >>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. > >Constantly changing forms are real, not imaginary. Changing forms are >impermanent, therefore illusory. Mary, again: I don't see how something can be both real and illusory. >If it is true that all life must support itself by killing, then as humans, we >have the choice to limit the extent of the killing we do. Some of us uses >Lysol and Raid, but will not eat meat. Just as various economic benefits can be gained at less cost, so can life be purchased at lower levels of killing. >we can forgive a smoker for having had an addictive and unhealthy habit. >We can feel that they do not deserve the denial of insurance because of >their habits. Forgiving smokers does not rule out holding them responsible for their habits. >We can also feel that anybody gravely ill should have the best medical attention possible. In some societies, the elderly ill volunteer to die rather than be a burden. "You can't put a price tag on human life" would only be true if money was unlimited. What if treating one ill person stops us from treating 10 others? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:50:41 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32daedf6.1832462@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > You can say that lemons are purple, but that won't make it true. If lemons are purple, then calling them yellow would be objectively wrong. >take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking about temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. If it is correct now, without any physical changes, when might it become incorrect? >Even the concept of addition is not constant: what do >you get when you add 3 to January 2, 1997? Assuming you meant subtract, no mathematical laws are ever going to change which will change the result. Dating systems might change, but not the laws of mathematics which they use. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:53:27 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970111195327.006d5144@mail.eden.com> At 01:15 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: > >> 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. > > It had to happen someday; I agree with you. > > At the New York Lodge, there is no problem with discussion of other >Theosophical movements, or even their presentation on our public program >(we used to have ULT people speaking here on a regular basis, for >example; it was the ULT, not us, who stopped doing it). We have among >our membership a man who has been with an Alice Bailey group for 20 >years (and still is), who has given presentations to the members. > > Certainly, a lot of people in the TSA would be upset of a TSA Lodge or >study group dedicated itself to become effectively a member of a >different theosophical organization (and might consider revoking the >charter if they forbade discussion of the material, like at least one >theosophical organization does), but I know of a number of Lodges and >study groups who concentrate on Bailey or Steiner or Judge without any >problems. > > Bart Lidofsky > Glad to see the feedback on what is going on in Lodges around this country. As far as the cancellation of charters in Canada and Denmark etc. no one who has first hand access to the information has come forth and explained why the charter was cancelled. Cancellation of a National Section Charter is not a simple or easy decision at the highest level, especially at a time the membership world wide is perhaps at its lowest and perhaps shrinking. So there should be some valid and strong reasons. The questions is what is preventing anyone who knows full facts to come out with details. Again why the secrecy? What or who is/are being protected? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:57:09 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <32dbeff6.2344858@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Thoa Tran wrote: >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. > >TTT: > >Wel-l-l-l...you got me. Please go back into my paragraphs and do a search >of the words patriarchal and feminine, and delete them. First, Triaist man >got the job, and now a woman is making the same mistake as a man. I can >smell that equality! Sh-h-h, don't tell the word police where I am.... You've got the wrong part of your inconsistency wrong. Men and women _are_ different, and there is nothing wrong with making generalizations saying how they are different. Women _are_ more compassionate and cooperative than men. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:08:16 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Cliques and enclosures Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970111200816.006df830@mail.eden.com> At 01:20 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >I haven't really followed the Boston Lodge controversy and so won't comment on >it. I am not really a member of the TS anyway. But it does remind me of a very >interesting faculty of human beings: enclosure making. > >Enclosures appear in nations, families, organizations and in an >individual. They enable a particularizing identity to form and also enable a >person, family or organization to hear their own creations reflected back to >them. An enclosure can become a sacred space or a tomb. A protective enclosure >keeps out thoughts or influences which are harmful, but negative enclosures >become festering wounds. > >In an organization, negative enclosures become cliques. In the beginning, >everyone in a clique agrees with one another. In the end, no one agrees with >anyone and it ruptures. > >I found M K Ramadoss's quote of Master KH very interesting: "Misleading >secrecy has given the death blow to numerous organizations." > >This happened in my former spiritual home - despite the late founder's >warnings. Public shaming and the use of offices for self-aggrandizement grew >to insane proportions. The amazing thing was that there were very intelligent >people who became perverted. It was a great education for me, but the >unfortunate result was that we became a spiritually lifeless shell. The shell >persists to this day, but I just couldn't stay. > An insightful post and confirmation of Master KH's statement. As a matter of fact Adyar TS has never officially published this part of the letter. It is the courtesy of Eclectic Theosophist (I think) which published the full letter including the redacted portions. May be those who redacted were fully aware of why Master KH made such a statement. To my knowledge, there are only two instances of T/theosophy/ Search for Truth related litigation where enormous sums of money was spent on expensive attorneys. The first one was the 18 year long litigation between the (1) Trustees of Krishnamurti Trust and (2) California Atty General, Krishnamurti and the new Trust -- to recover and use the money donated for K's work. The second instance was the Boston Lodge litigation. The irony is that one of those Trustees who were defendants in the K Trust has been and is on the National Board of Directors of TSA. There is no problem is some donor came along and made a big contribution and said go ahead and use this money and litigate. But the money spent (wasted) were from donors whose intent was to spend the money to further the spiritual message and not to line up the pockets of expensive lawyers. This is my 2 cents worth. You mileage and direction may vary. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:25:32 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32ddf724.4182099@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking about >temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. That a temperature of -500 might be equivalent to a temperature of -1000 does not make -500 equivalent to -1000. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:28:46 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970111202846.006d7658@mail.eden.com> At 10:55 PM 1/10/97 -0500, Eldon wrote: >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. > Let me jump in and add my 2 cents worth. JRC at various times has expressed very clearly and succintly ideas and suggestions that some on theos-l agreed. In such a situation, there are two choices. One is to lurk and be silent. Another is post a message of support, which only confirms that he is not alone in his views on a particular topic. It can be seen any way one wants. Either as an additional corroboration or cheering depending on how one views it. Any ideas or actions, if they are inherently correct and/or right, can withstand any amount of critique or criticism. It is very easy to accept and go along with. It is more difficult and to stand alone (not isolated) and be a critique. One of the great qualities of great individuals appears to be the capacity to handle criticisms and critique. Such great individuals, when they find out they were wrong on anything, they have the courage to come out and openly accept their error or mistake. This makes it easy to go further. These are just my thoughts. Your mileage and direction will vary. MKR >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 14:47:09 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theosophical Activities in Iceland Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970111204709.006b350c@mail.eden.com> Hi It was an eyeopener for me when recently I found out that Iceland has over 300 members in a population of 270,000. I live in a city in the US with over a million population. In our local TS lodge, the membership appears to be around 20 with just a handful of active ones. I am excerpting a msg I recently received from Iceland which I hope many will find very interesting. All lodges all over the world can learn some very valuable lessons from the successes of Icelandic Section. Two things stand out in the message. One is the range of activities and the other is the principle of not charging for their programs. I was a member of lodges in India for several years and situation there is quite the same. No one even inquires if you are a member. They are glad that you have shown up and hope you will pick up some ideas and use it in your life, thus improving those with whom one comes into contact. Hear is the excerpted msg: ============================================================================ Yes we have a lively theosophical work here in ICELAND, but like in other places it all depends on few ardent members. According to what I have encountered in other sections we probably are more open and unconventional in our presentation of Theosophy than almost anywhere else. We don't have the SD in our language, and very few of the theosophical classics, except The Light on the Path, and The Voice of the Silence. On the other hand we have had many exceptional lecturers and writers, that were very well versed in theosophy, and that expounded on it in their own way, bringing it up to date and relevant to average modern people in need for a meaning to their life. For many decades almost all activities have been totally open to whoever wanted to come and share some time with us. There is principally no fee to pay for the teaching, and we never pay fee for a talk or even series of talks. All work is on voluntary basis. One important factor is our magazine, Gangleri, which is highly revered among non-members as well as members and has over thousand subscribers. We also try to keep the teachings "down to life" and practical, rather than theoretical. This does not mean that it gets shallow or simple, on the contrary we try to go as deep as possible into the esoteric and mystical common ground of spirituality. Thus meditation and Self-culture is the "line of the day" in our work. To give you some idea of what we have been engaged in, I can mention in addition to the Light and the Voice, Krishnamurti has been a central theme for decades, so has Mahayana Buddhism, especially Maha-Mudra, also Chan and Zen Buddhism and Taoism. Of the Hindu line I am especially found of Kashmir Shivaism, and the mystics, like Ramana Maharsi. We have also had visits from Buddhists, Swamis from the Ramakrishna order, and others. Yoga has also been a prominent subject and there we have had a broad line of study, from the psychological and philosophical end, to the mystical and esoteric practice, and even on to the study and practice of some mantric laya yoga (Shiva Shakti - but this is all on a strictly individual level). All the studies are considered "High Quality" spiritual studies, no charlatans admitted. Although strictly independent, we try to be on good terms with the vast flora of spiritual groups, (almost "Californian" variety here), but I think we can consider us to be the "mother lode", - the respected "grandma", of the spiritual movement in Iceland. If you would to get some idea of our studies, you can log in on an article by my late mentor and former GS, Sigvaldi Hjalmarsson, at: http://www.silcom.com/~origin/ucs/rainbow.htm ====================================================================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:24:29 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970111132427.00692d98@mail.deltanet.com> MKR: >JRC at various times has >expressed very clearly and succinctly ideas and suggestions that some on >theos-l agreed. In such a situation, there are two choices. One is to lurk >and be silent. Another is post a message of support, which only confirms >that he is not alone in his views on a particular topic. It can be seen any >way one wants. Either as an additional corroboration or cheering depending >on how one views it. If it were only a brilliant expression of ideas, no one would object, even if they did not agree. In a discussion group, if you don't like what someone is saying, and you were to walk up to them, grab them by their shirt and pull them out of their chair, call them a puny little illogical fool with vile motives and give an icy laugh in their face, and some in the group started to clap and cheer, what would you think? There's something quite wrong, apart from how brilliantly either argument was going on. In my previous posting, I was pointing out the adverse side effects of such an approach, since JRC may not be fully aware of how this appears. If you seen no harm in it, and understand why personal attacks would be valuable, perhaps you can explain it so that I can understand. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:24:16 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > There are unicorns on a planet 800 trillion light years away from us, which > is made of green cheese. Since no one has yet asked me for evidence to > back this up, I can now also say that I don't make statements unless I have > evidence to back them up. If I can think of 3 statements off the top of my > head that JRC has made which contradict his statement that he has evidence > to back up what he says, how many more examples could I find if I thought > it was worth my time and effort to actually research what he has said? > If I can think of three statements off the top of my head that Tom has made that demonsrate his personal attacks on other Theosophists, how many more could I find if I re-read the whole vitrolic body of his posts? I repeat Tom, every post you make that takes a shot at me will be responded to in kind. The moment you stop, I will. It is completely up to you whether you wish to continue with a level of discourse that, when engaged in by others, you called "untheosophical". -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:01:53 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > > If it were only a brilliant expression of ideas, no one would object, even > if they did not agree. In a discussion group, if you don't like what someone > is saying, and you were to walk up to them, grab them by their shirt and > pull them out of their chair, call them a puny little illogical fool with > vile motives and give an icy laugh in their face, and some in the group > started to clap and cheer, what would you think? There's something quite > wrong, apart from how brilliantly either argument was going on. Something would be wrong. However, as a means of responding to someone else who has, either overtly or by implication, begun such a scene, it is one (certainly not the only, but one) means of facing the situation. Look at this previous paragraph - you never mention me by name, and state a concept in terms of a very innocent universal principle, no "personal attack" here, but does anyone doubt you are referring here to *me*? And if in response I address you personally, will I then be accused of grabbing you by the shirt? > > In my previous posting, I was pointing out the adverse side effects of > such an approach, since JRC may not be fully aware of how this appears. > If you seen no harm in it, and understand why personal attacks would be > valuable, perhaps you can explain it so that I can understand. I doubt anyone can explain it so that you will understand it. I explained ... in fairly measured tones ... to that post, explaining a bit of the perspective from which I work. Either you did not understand it, or (more likely) simply don't agree with it. How things *appear* make little difference to me. And I'm kinda suprised you posted that - I thought we have reached some state of acceptance of one another. That I don't accept your personal perception of what I'm doing as objective truth should be no suprise. You've told me before how you judge my communication style. As I've told you that I consider your tone of "teaching the unaware masses" somewhat condescending. I hope you don't wish to re-argue this. Once again, I am fully aware of what I'm doing, and more than that, understand that from within the worldview you use to judge my actions, you will continually find them not meeting your standards - but from my perspective you often seem to generalize your own personal conceptions into universal standards, and I neither accept those standards nor am concerned with meeting them. Just as you have shown no intention whatsoever to alter your behaviour or presentation because of my opinions. But do you really want to have this conversation again? Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:09:44 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970112000944.006de3e4@mail.eden.com> At 04:26 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >MKR: > >>JRC at various times has >>expressed very clearly and succinctly ideas and suggestions that some on >>theos-l agreed. In such a situation, there are two choices. One is to lurk >>and be silent. Another is post a message of support, which only confirms >>that he is not alone in his views on a particular topic. It can be seen any >>way one wants. Either as an additional corroboration or cheering depending >>on how one views it. > >If it were only a brilliant expression of ideas, no one would object, even >if they did not agree. In a discussion group, if you don't like what someone >is saying, and you were to walk up to them, grab them by their shirt and >pull them out of their chair, call them a puny little illogical fool with >vile motives and give an icy laugh in their face, and some in the group >started to clap and cheer, what would you think? There's something quite >wrong, apart from how brilliantly either argument was going on. > >In my previous posting, I was pointing out the adverse side effects of >such an approach, since JRC may not be fully aware of how this appears. >If you seen no harm in it, and understand why personal attacks would be >valuable, perhaps you can explain it so that I can understand. > >-- Eldon As everyone here probably is aware, I have never and will never support any personal attacks by anyone here or anywhere nor would any one see me doing it. If there are two people who indulge in personal attacks, then it is purely upto them to resolve them, and hopefully will be resolved. There is also another issue that I have seen in life. That is, I would rather have someone personally openly attack me up front so that I can know the attacker, understand the attack and try to deal with it. But when the attack is made on your back or when you back is turned, when you do not even know the attacker or see the attacker, it is worse. I hope my position is very clear on the above. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:31:22 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments - reply to Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970111163120.00683be4@mail.deltanet.com> JRC: >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. We're approached this topic in the past. One point is that a typical Western approach to spiritual awakening may involve a sense of "shattering", which comes out of the uncomfortable and extremely volatile external circumstances. This is as contrasted with an more eastern approach where the experience is more akin to melting or blending-into the higher. In either case, there's apparent chaos, turbulence, and events of extremely unexpected surprise that appear in our external lives. You tend to view the process from a more western standpoint and see conflict as an essential ingredient. I'd see is as a rare tonic, a medicine, not as a daily ingredient of life. >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 ... Yes, certainly compassion is much more than the "spoil them rotten" simple-minded version of the overly-kindly grandma. It's really indifferent to pleasure and pain, to someone's personal comfort. But there is a line where justice and fairness is drawn and cruelty and injustice begin. >as if you actually look at their words and behavior, 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. She certainly had many personal qualities that were counterproductive, that would tend to handicap her. The Masters were primarily writing to Sinnett, for his benefit. >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. It was 1/3 for selfishness, 2/3 for the ill effects of organized religions. This would include things like the Holy Wars, the Inquisition, the witch burnings, etc. >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*). This is why the Master's have said that false but sincerely held beliefs are a greater barrier to someone's "coming to them" than drink, an impious external life, etc. I'd object to the term "almost *ruthless*" though. I'd call it astonishing, or surprising, or totally unexpected -- somewhat zen-like, rather than something acting with a karate-like quality that simply hits you and knocks you down. >I have no illusions, nor desire, >to be a "clever guru" ... in fact I don't believe in gurus at all But you give this impression when you tell Tom that you respond to him in the same manner and measure as he acts. >(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?). Perhaps a different "teacher" tone than you like to use. Yours has more of the sound of a "karate instructor", mine may have more of a "traditional guru" sound to it. >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 ... Waiting before replying is good, giving more time to reflect upon what he may say and stand back from emotional reactions. >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. It's possible to deflate certain ideas, or defuse an explosive discussion, without getting into a personal fight. >I simply chose to very deliberately 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. There are different ways to bring someone to moderate their ideas. One is to ask them to do it. Others include asking them to clarify what they say, getting them to explain their ideas and perhaps moderate them in the process. Also, given the wide spectrum of views we have on the list, it's possible to have all extremes represented. I don't expect people to generally change their views to accord with the majority, but would expect people to learn more respectful ways of self-expression, that result in an exchange of ideas and positive interchanges, rather than a bringing up of barriers and bitter fights. I'd say it's possible to disarm someone that is combative without having to take up arms. >(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?) I wouldn't make the claim. Also, there are perhaps a dozen definitions of Theosophist and Theosophy, and we'd have to say which one we're talking about, and someone's inner spiritual status is not always indicated by their external circumstances and demeanor. The statement is a judgement made in anger, saying "you're not one of us" rather than talking about admirable qualities that define a Theosophist in a way that encourages one to emulate them. >Please also, notice a couple of things ... in going after him so >deliberately, I wound up being an "attractor" (as the chaos theorists say) >- the vicious 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. Learning to be more careful about writing is a lesson we've all learned as we participate in these discussions. Your confrontations of him may help Tom accelerate the process whereby he acquires greater diplomacy, subtly, and interpersonal insight in his writings. And perhaps if Richard Ihle steps in, he'll get accelerated practice in wit and dry humor. Getting accustomed to writing in this media takes time, and it's obvious to see the hardline positions taken by newcomers, not realizing the immediate reactions they'll get from others. On the other hand, even with improved writing skills, people don't change their basic personalities, so even after a year of writing we may have the same attitude from people. I wonder if Alexis' favorite word still is "deplore"? Each time any of us posts something, we may alter the direction and thought flow of the group. Even though I haven't time to write a lot this past 1/2 year, I'll feel drawn on occasion to post a note, to add a slight "push", hopefully something that can be helpful. >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. Agreed. >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 (-:). He was expressing an unpopular view in dogmatic-sounding words, and it started getting people angry. If the same ideas were put in a different way, it might, though, have been possible to reconcile some of them. (If we look at different species of animals, for instance, there are unique ways in which males and females assume duties in life, different work assignments, social roles, positions of power in society. If we look at different human cultures throughout the world or in the past, we'll see different roles and responsibilities for men and women. We can say "men are this way" or "women are that way" *in a descriptive sense*. From a political standpoint, from a standpoint of ethics, of values, though, we might say, "men *and* women *should* be this way, or that way." Now we're talking in a different context, talking about possible future societies, rather than describing the status quo or past. Tom was describing social roles and observable characteristics, the others were talking about what people are possible of and how they feel things *should be*.) >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 seems 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. And I'm responding the same. >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. Thanks. I think that there's a lot that all of us have to offer -- you, Tom, and I -- if we can get around the communication landmines without getting our feet blown off. > Kind Regards, -JRC And best wishes. -- Eldon >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 ..... After it came out, there were a few comments on theos-talk on it. Richard Ihle had several things to say on it. Perhaps he'd like to repost some of his comments? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:10:41 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970112011041.0069d680@mail.eden.com> =================this is a re-post with a new note at the end ========== At 04:26 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: <>MKR: <> <>>JRC at various times has <>>expressed very clearly and succinctly ideas and suggestions that some on <>>theos-l agreed. In such a situation, there are two choices. One is to lurk <>>and be silent. Another is post a message of support, which only confirms <>>that he is not alone in his views on a particular topic. It can be seen any <>>way one wants. Either as an additional corroboration or cheering depending <>>on how one views it. <> <>If it were only a brilliant expression of ideas, no one would object, even <>if they did not agree. In a discussion group, if you don't like what someone <>is saying, and you were to walk up to them, grab them by their shirt and <>pull them out of their chair, call them a puny little illogical fool with <>vile motives and give an icy laugh in their face, and some in the group <>started to clap and cheer, what would you think? There's something quite <>wrong, apart from how brilliantly either argument was going on. <> <>In my previous posting, I was pointing out the adverse side effects of <>such an approach, since JRC may not be fully aware of how this appears. <>If you seen no harm in it, and understand why personal attacks would be <>valuable, perhaps you can explain it so that I can understand. <> <>-- Eldon <> As everyone here probably is aware, I have never and will never <> support any personal attacks by anyone here or anywhere nor would any <> one see me doing it. If there are two people who indulge in personal <> attacks, then it is purely upto them to resolve them, and hopefully <> will be resolved. <> There is also another issue that I have seen in life. That is, <> I would rather have someone personally openly attack me up front so <> that I can know the attacker, understand the attack and try to deal <> with it. But when the attack is made on your back or when you back is <> turned, when you do not even know the attacker or see the attacker, <> it is worse. <> I hope my position is very clear on the above. <> <>MKR PS: When I look at the main subject of the post, all this bandwidth use and discussions are simply a very direct result of the non-availability of verifiable documented factual information surrounding the Boston Lodge. We can trust everybody and anybody high or low, important or unimportant. But as a Russian Proverb says: "Trust but Verify". In money and property matters, this is the most satisfactory way to get the air cleared of any inaccurate information that may be floating around. Until such time more light is shone on the issue and everybody sees the whole picture and understand why a certain action was taken or why a certain action was not taken, the issue is not easily going to go away. With more subscribers getting on theos-l, more of them would be wondering what is the real story. Any supporters and cheerers are welcome to join me on the above point of view!!! This is my 2 cents worth. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:40:14 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <199701120116.UAA14872@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Ann, > > The Botanic Garden is much too peaceful for me. I want things I can blow up, > and I don't mean balloons. So I think I'll create something combining > Valhalla, the Paradise of Islam and the landscape of Doom. > How about the Valkyries chasing you around an island volcano with a few dinosaurs and other assorted alien creatures breathing flames? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:42:51 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701120116.UAA14896@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > There are unicorns on a planet 800 trillion light years away from us, which > is made of green cheese. And besides that, I am consistently getting posts from you that have the ends chopped off. But not from anyone else. Have any ideas what's going on? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:29:19 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: In message <970111141115_373683443@emout20.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Ann, > >The Botanic Garden is much too peaceful for me. I want things I can blow up, >and I don't mean balloons. So I think I'll create something combining >Valhalla, the Paradise of Islam and the landscape of Doom. > >Chuck the Heretic I thought you already had. 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, 12 Jan 1997 01:40:17 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Unicorns Message-ID: <7EVYicABEE2yEwHH@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message , JRC writes >On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: >> >> There are unicorns on a planet 800 trillion light years away from us, which >> is made of green cheese. Correct. I hae been there and seen them. The shade of green is most pleasant, and the inhabitants are all lurkers on theos-l. The unicorns are said to be trained in sticking their horn in unwelcome human orifices, though I have not personally seen this happen. Anyone can verify the above by going into a state of suspended samadhic and nirvanic meditation by holding their breath for three hours. The return trip is rather long, and takes several lifetimes, but it is well worth it. Postcards from the Green Cheese Souvenir Shoppe take a little longer. 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, 12 Jan 1997 01:28:26 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: The Problems of International Organisation Message-ID: In message <32D7E252.2ED8@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes > However, like many was, the actual battles are about a much larger >issue. The largest theosophical organization, The Theosophical Society, >represented in the United States by the TSA, has been accused of being a >repressive organization, hypocritcally trying to stamp out the truth >while claiming a dedication for the Truth. Which may have some truth to it; but it is clear from the research of theosophical historians that much of the problem begins not with the TSA, but in Adyar itself. In England, the Theosophical History Group (an official TS body) was disbanded, and now has to carry on its work from the USA. I came across the notion somewhere (alas, citations not available) that with Canada at least the main problem lay with Canadian law, in that it could not permit control of a Canadian organisation from another country, which the Adyar Constitution requires. This also happened some years ago with the Liberal Catholic Church in Canada - there were two branches, and one of them had to change its name to the Independent Catholic Church. I know - I joined it (the latter) at the time! A copy of the Adyar Rules, may I remind the list, is available on the website below in one of the sub-directories. 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, 12 Jan 1997 01:11:25 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Private matters? Message-ID: In message <9701110941.AA03934@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >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." This is precisely and exactly what happened to me this time last year. This year I shall resign altogether from the Adyar TS, in which I have seen this kind of behavior (in England) evolve almost into an art form. The TS semms to be a very sick body, and likely to die. If it is like this in the rest of the world (and tales from the US are not encouraging) then as Doss has reminded us all on more than one occasion, the 1900 Letter warns of this very possibility. So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! Long live theosophy!" Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:56:07 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970112025607.006d3ec0@mail.eden.com> At 09:00 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >In message <9701110941.AA03934@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > writes >>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." > >This is precisely and exactly what happened to me this time last year. > >This year I shall resign altogether from the Adyar TS, in which I have >seen this kind of behavior (in England) evolve almost into an art form. >The TS semms to be a very sick body, and likely to die. If it is like >this in the rest of the world (and tales from the US are not >encouraging) then as Doss has reminded us all on more than one occasion, >the 1900 Letter warns of this very possibility. > >So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! >Long live theosophy!" > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: >http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ >E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk > There is a new book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and The Rajagopals". As Krishnamurti lived in Adyar for several years and as many consider him to be a very keen observer, there are two quotes in the above book which I think might interest some here: In 1925, "K had found Adyar a "very gossipy" place and had been dismayed by all the jealousies and antogonistic cliques there." In 1933 K wrote to Emily Lutyens after Besant's death "I'm completely out of it all," "their illusions, their fight for power & their so-called occultism. Adyar is lovely but the people are DEAD." I think there may be some truth to what he had said since he was a witness to what was going on there. Has the situation changed since that time? Has any of this "culture" got transferred to other National Headquarters? My simple answer is I do not know. Readers can come to their own conclusions. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR PS: There are other very interesting and surprising facts, incidents in the above quoted book. Keep tuned. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:12:34 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >h39 > z32 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 21:02:16 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Problems of International Organisation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970112030216.006ccf18@mail.eden.com> At 09:00 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >In message <32D7E252.2ED8@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky > writes >> However, like many was, the actual battles are about a much larger >>issue. The largest theosophical organization, The Theosophical Society, >>represented in the United States by the TSA, has been accused of being a >>repressive organization, hypocritcally trying to stamp out the truth >>while claiming a dedication for the Truth. > >Which may have some truth to it; but it is clear from the research of >theosophical historians that much of the problem begins not with the >TSA, but in Adyar itself. In England, the Theosophical History Group >(an official TS body) was disbanded, and now has to carry on its work >from the USA. I came across the notion somewhere (alas, citations not >available) that with Canada at least the main problem lay with Canadian >law, in that it could not permit control of a Canadian organisation from >another country, which the Adyar Constitution requires. This also >happened some years ago with the Liberal Catholic Church in Canada - >there were two branches, and one of them had to change its name to the >Independent Catholic Church. I know - I joined it (the latter) at the >time! > >A copy of the Adyar Rules, may I remind the list, is available on the >website below in one of the sub-directories. > >Alan >--------- >THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: >http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ >E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk > As far as the Canadian situation is concerned, I think the friction between the section and Adyar has been going on for a long time. It appears that the organizational issue regarding the Canadian laws may be the excuse that was used. Until verifiable facts from Adyar archives of the General Council transcripts become available, no one will know if the real reason was the Canadian Laws. As long as verifiable information is unavailable, these issues and the possible speculation about the real reasons will not go away and there will be more questions than answers. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:02:24 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <199701120302.UAA27685@snowden.micron.net> Richard wrote: >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. It ain't. >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. Too true. >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. Mistakenly? Did we ever resolve that? >Thus, I was somewhat surprised to see no objection from Kym or anyone else >when ~community~ and ~cooperation~ suddenly showed up as "feminine" terms. Me, too. I am horrified. (seriously) >(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). Patriarchal is akin to hierarchy and power - as the term is applied to group situations. Masculine does not mean the same as patriarchal. Feminine does not mean matriarchal. >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. Richard, at the risk of being taunted with "liar, liar, pants on fire" - I honestly never saw TTT's post. I don't receive about a fourth of my e-mail due to recurrent server problems. I really don't even know what we're talking about here, but how could I resist not answering a post entitled "Silence of the Kyms?" It's clearly a 'double dog dare you' post. I love those. I think, though, Richard, there is only one Kym. There is a Kim (spelled with an 'i'), but there is only one Kym, as far as I know. Surely you're not doing the unthinkable - grouping all women into one and calling them Kyms, are you? You may not be seeing us as individuals. Say it isn't so, Richard! HOWEVER! It warms my oh-so-hardened heart to know that you have been alert to any gender jumblings. I surely do hope a few other fellas will follow your lead. >Tell me how I should be thinking about these things and I will undoubtedly >cooperate (I've been married). . . . I look forward to your cooperation. I look forward to your future postings. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:19:31 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, M K Ramadoss wrote: > > "Trust but Verify". > > In money and property matters, this is the most satisfactory way to get the > air cleared of any inaccurate information that may be floating around. Until > such time more light is shone on the issue and everybody sees the whole > picture and understand why a certain action was taken or why a certain > action was not taken, the issue is not easily going to go away. With more > subscribers getting on theos-l, more of them would be wondering what is the > real story. > > Any supporters and cheerers are welcome to join me on the above point of view!!! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. It is not only on this list, but in various TS circles that - despite complete silence from Wheaton - word of the Boston Lodge situation is spreading. And despite the use of several different approaches, requests for full information from Headquarters have been met with silence. There are a number of different people, I think, that are simply *not* going to let this thing be forgotten. Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:08:55 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: conservatism Message-ID: <199701120322.WAA14732@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > The >costs of organizing a nation of tens of millions of people are >proportionally greater, and so it should be more decentralized and >competitive. Agree with decentralized.,... but why "competitive"? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 20:27:22 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > writes > >h39 > > > z32 > w45 -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:20:15 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: humbleness Message-ID: <199701120333.WAA16619@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >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 that idea is coming to pass. We have a supermarket chain in Central NY, Wegman's, who give their employes paid time off for community activities. It was written up in our newspaper not too long ago. I don't remember everything the employees do, but I remember that some of them helped tutor school children. I think there are some more firms doing it, but the memory is vague. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:25:17 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: humbleness Message-ID: <199701120338.WAA17560@ultra1.dreamscape.com> PS to TTT I do agree with you that some firms do "charity" work (sounds awful .... "helping work") for the PR value, but I have an idea that once they get involved, and see how much good they can do, their attitude changes. Meantime, they're doing something good for part of mankind, even if it's with the wrong motives. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:31:24 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: silence of the Kym's Message-ID: <199701120345.WAA18594@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Richard, Touche. Working in cooperation *has* been described as a femninine trait, but you're absolutely right, if we don't allow that certain traits are masculine, then the same should go for traits regarded as feminine. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:53:50 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Chim Chim Cheerie Message-ID: <32D8604D.30EA@withoutwalls.com> Mary wrote: >I don't see how something can be both real and illusory. "Real" to the senses. Illusory in relation to the Boundless. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:02:46 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970112040246.006d0650@mail.eden.com> At 10:23 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> "Trust but Verify". >> >> In money and property matters, this is the most satisfactory way to get the >> air cleared of any inaccurate information that may be floating around. Until >> such time more light is shone on the issue and everybody sees the whole >> picture and understand why a certain action was taken or why a certain >> action was not taken, the issue is not easily going to go away. With more >> subscribers getting on theos-l, more of them would be wondering what is the >> real story. >> >> Any supporters and cheerers are welcome to join me on the above point of view!!! > >Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. It is not only on this list, but in >various TS circles that - despite complete silence from Wheaton - word of >the Boston Lodge situation is spreading. And despite the use of several >different approaches, requests for full information from Headquarters have >been met with silence. There are a number of different people, I think, >that are simply *not* going to let this thing be forgotten. > Regards, -JRC > > Very few really understand the power of communication media. First came the inexpensive fax machines which were used to communicate to people behind Iron Curtain and then in China. We saw what live television has done to bring graphic going ons around the world to our living rooms. It has spurred action and stopped further atrocities around the world. All the dirty and cruel things that used to be done in the name of country, patriotism, religion, spiritual quest etc. and people kept in the dark, is no more so. The power potential of Internet is enormous and very few can forsee its usefulness and also its potential to ultimately do good. I had a very recent interesting experience. I ran into an individual in cyberspace and when conversing I causally asked some questions about the place where the person lived and there came a mention of a name that was well known in that area. Then I asked if this person was aware of certain incident in the life of this person which in *not* well known in that area and was kept at the lowest key. The answer was no. This happened to be in spite of the fact that this cyberfriend happened to be a close friend of the grown up child of this well known person. I am sure this cyber friend is going to ask the child about the incident and the parent is going to have a surprise and would be wondering what is going on in cyberspace. This particular instance has nothing to do with someone's personal life. I treat others personal matters as private as I wish tp treat mine. This incident was a very public matter. That was why I brought it up. So information on cyberspace is travelling fast and wide and immediate and with unpredictable results. Long live Internet!!! MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:05:09 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32d861eb.31321365@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 12 Jan 97, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: >I am consistently getting posts from you that have the >ends chopped off. But not from anyone else. Have any ideas what's going >on? The ends chopped off? If this means that you are not getting the whole message of my messages, then you don't know what you're missing. Or does it mean that there is a line-width problem? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:13:52 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: humbleness Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970112041352.006d6218@mail.eden.com> At 10:38 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: > >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 that idea is coming to pass. We have a supermarket chain in Central NY, >Wegman's, who give their employes paid time off for community activities. It >was written up in our newspaper not too long ago. I don't remember >everything the employees do, but I remember that some of them helped tutor >school children. > >I think there are some more firms doing it, but the memory is vague. > >Liesel > Let me add a practical application of service to humanity. This woman doctor who is the pediatrician to my children lost her only son when he was 18. Even though the child had congenital problems and the doctor knew he is not going to live long, it was a real loss to the mother. This doctor is practicing in an non affluent area. One day she asked my mother as to what she could do on the death anniversary of her child. It is customary in India to feed people to commemorate death anniversary. My mother, who has not read Secret Doctrine or does not know much about the abstract theosophical matters, but knows some application of practical brotherhood, told this lady why not she provide free treatment to all children who show up on the death anniversary. She listened and every year, she remembers her deceased child by providing free treatment to all the children who show up at her clinic on that day. I think this is real Theosophy in action, even though she does not know anything about Theosophy. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:15:58 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: humbleness Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970112041558.0069fba4@mail.eden.com> At 10:43 PM 1/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >PS to TTT > >I do agree with you that some firms do "charity" work (sounds awful .... >"helping work") for the PR value, but I have an idea that once they get >involved, and see how much good they can do, their attitude changes. >Meantime, they're doing something good for part of mankind, even if it's >with the wrong motives. > >Liesel > I agree with you. If some action is helping someone, even if the motive may be wrong, let us look at it from the point of the person helped. I would welcome more do gooders even if wrongly motivated. Once they get into that habit, it is very easy to turn around motives. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 00:41:37 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The War between the Bostons Message-ID: On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > However, like many was, the actual battles are about a much larger > issue. The largest theosophical organization, The Theosophical Society, > represented in the United States by the TSA, has been accused of being a > repressive organization, hypocritcally trying to stamp out the truth > while claiming a dedication for the Truth. Some painted as the major > villains are friends of some of us here. We are being told that we > belong to an organization which is far different and far more sinister > than the one in which we see ourselves. > > In other words, those who are happy to be members of the TSA are > effectively being called repressive or happy slaves. Being neither, we > try to correct the situation. Bart ... I'm sorry you have interpreted criticisms of HQ to mean that any members are being called "repressive or happy slaves". It seems a bit of a stretch to me - Theosophists have all sorts of things they want out of the TSA ... for many, being able to attend an occaisional meeting, or getting the Quest, or borrowing a book now and then from Olcott is all they are really interested in - and TS politics means absolutely nothing to them. And certainly many of HQ's harshest critics still maintain membership - so if your "in other words" is true, with their criticism they are calling *themselves* "repressive or happy slaves". This hardly makes any sense. If the situation you are trying to correct is what you perceive to be a mis-catagorization of yourself, then nothing needs correction, as this is your interpretation - I know of no critic that has ever said, or even ever thought, that the *membership* was at fault for being happy to be members. If, however, what you mean by "correcting the situation" is defending HQ on this list against completely false charges ... well, I for one would welcome that - but I hope you will investigate the situations before you simply conclude HQ is guiltless. You might find - as a number of those who were quite supportive of HQ found - that there unfortunately *is* quite valid reasons to be disturbed by some of the actions of the faction now running our organization. As a for instance ... what do you know of the Bing situation? Remember several years ago (I do ... it was what turned me - who was quite happy with and supportive of the TSA and thought at one time of running for office or contributing in some other way - into a critic)? Bing was the National Lecturer. He was well liked and extremely well respected throughout the country. His grasp of Theosophy is formidable, his presentations were excellent, and I remember him taking particular care to take time for new members ... in fact I remember once he had lectured at our branch, had been on the road all day, spoke at a public lecture that night and was scheduled to leave early the next day, and yet he took almost an hour after the meeting to sit down with a young newcomer (who was not yet even a member) and explain several concepts at an exceedingly basic level - and did so in fashion that gave the person no feeling of being talked down to or patronized. He was a tireless servent of Theosophy. He was, unfortunately though, rather more open minded and original about Theosophy than was the faction of fundamentalists that now control HQ, and were just coming to power when Bing ran (against Dorothy A.) for President. At the time Bing was living on the grounds at HQ - he didn't make much money as the National Lecturer, but had room and board (when he wasn't on the road ... which he was a considerable amount of the time). Well, when he ran, *John Algeo* sent a *letter to the membership* urging members to *vote against Bing*. I remember the letter, our whole branch had two meetings about it, it was so upsetting - several members were downright livid. Algeo, who at the time was (I believe) on the board, presumably used the HQ mailing list - and (though this I cannot verify) presumably did not personally pay for printing and postage for a mass mailing. It makes me chuckle - Bing is now on the Board ... I wonder what would happen if, prior to the next election, *Bing* tried to use the HQ mailing list and resources to mail a general letter urging the membership to *vote against Algeo*. Do you suppose Algeo would permit Bing to use the same tactics against him that he used against Bing? This, however, is a moot point - as it would not even *occur* to Bing to stoop to such levels. Well, Dorothy won - by a miniscule margin (and with questions about the voting process). What happens then? Bing is in Texas doing some sort of project meant to develop Theosophy there and the Board votes to *fire* Bing, and flys Lynda Jo Pym to Texas to hand him a letter saying he is terminated and has a month for himself and his family to vacate the premises at Wheaton. This is after literally years of service to national Theosophy. No notice, not even an offer of severance pay, just get the hell out. I happen to know the dirty details of this because Bing contacted a good friend of mine - our Lodge's President and an attorney - for advice about the situation. My friend was in the process of filing a wrongful termination suit against Headquarters ... and tells me he would have won *easily* in court, as the firing was so obviously purely political ... but *Bing* decided to let it go ... to *forgive*, as even after the treatment he received, he didn't want to fight. It was after that election that another significant change took place - the Bylaw was passed that prevented anyone from running for President unless *they had first served a term on the Board*. This meant that when the next election occured, Algeo would have met that new qualification, while effectively *preventing* Bing from running against him. Bing had been working at the national level ... and more than that, had been a businessman ... and far more qualified than a college professor to do good administrative work - and (IMO) probably would have beaten Algeo *badly* in an election - as there were so many people deeply upset about HQ's treatment of Bing. *This*, Bart, is just *bullshit* behaviour. I think it is more than just a minor difference of opinion - it is one of several situations I'm aware of that I do *not* believe the people running the TSA should get away with. Yet they *do* get away with it (or at least have up to now). Bing, I think, operates as one who believes in forgiveness and compassion, and takes the long view. Even when he was explaining the situation (I asked him about it) he would not speak ill of another Theosophist. He was hurt, and sad, but showed an integrity scales of magnitude above those who had decided he was "in the way" and (as I think I remember Algeo saying in the letter) "not good for Theosophy". (NOTE: If you want, I think a friend still has a copy of that letter - if you wish I could try to hunt it up and perhaps post it to the list). He is now serving a term on the Board - and I hope will in the future run for the Presidency. >From my own point of view - I am not inclined to simply ignore and excuse such behaviour. And the *service* to Theosophy that I once hoped would be on behalf of and in cooperation with the TSA is to do whatever I can, in whatever circles, to periodically severely critisize actions I consider immoral, often close to downright illegal, and so far below the standards we should expect from the TSA leadership that I believe it threatens the organization itself. I am sorry if you choose to somehow interpret this as meaning *you* are "repressive or a happy slave" - but you are responsible for such an interpretation ... it is not something any of the HQ critics have ever meant, said, or would even want to imply. It is uncomfortable to dwell on such nastiness - most Theosophists would likely much prefer to talk philosophy - but every member of an organization has (IMO) a responsibility for the behaviour of the organization. You may serve the TSA by keeping the New York Lodge healthy and dynamic ... but perhaps you'll acknowledge that *if* the TSA is going to at least imply that it is a democratic organization, the checks and balances provided by people bringing distasteful behaviour by the leadership into open discussion is *healthy* ... and an equally valid avenue of service. Now, I wonder, how would you "correct the situation" with Bing? Do you think Algeo & Co. were justified in their actions? I would like to hear the justification. Do you think any of my facts are in error? Please demonstrate which ones. If neither is the case, however, do you not find it a bit *disturbing* ... might you not concede that the act of leveling criticism at HQ, of not letting such behaviour be buried or forgotten, *is* a way of "correcting a situation"? Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 08:35:16 GMT From: dewberry@poboxes.com (Bee Brown) Subject: Re: Humbleness Message-ID: <32d89663.49709786@mail> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 18:19:55 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >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 > The first thing I did when I began to try this and got a bit concerned about forgetting appointments etc, was to get a calander with big squares for each day and I hung it in a prominent place and made sure I wrote all things on it that I wanted to remember and it was quite surprising how that eased the panic. Now I automatically look there to see if I have anything on for the day and if not then I cruise in the moment without a care in the world :-) It seems to me that life begins to live itself through us when we are still and can hear it. Things are just happening to me at the moment and I feel as if I am standing by watching it all happen. Since mid Nov, I now have a job in the city 450 km from where I live, in the Theosophy HQ office, a house to buy when my present one is sold, a daughter to share it with and who will pay the mortgage, and it just all seems to be falling into place as I watch it all. My friends are scratching their heads and wondering what next and I am too. I really find that I do not need strain my mental equipment at all and interesting events just unfold from out of nowhere. Have fun with it as it gets better and better. Cheers 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: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:31:12 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: 3 objects Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970113034328.26f72952@iprolink.co.nz> To TTT, on seeing JRC's message: >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" - ..... An excellent book on Therapeutic Touch is Janet Macrae's "Therapeutic Touch - a practical guide". In some ways, it's clearer and more accessible than those by Krieger etc. Apropos the 3rd Object - yes; nothing is excluded. In fact, these are where the biggest potential probably lies. We're a bit inclined to think of the "spectacular" sort-of psychic things. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 04:00:15 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: The War between the Bostons Message-ID: Dear JRC: When all the events surrounding Bing took place, he was in San Antonio where I live. Some how I missed the letter from Algeo you referred to in your post. If you or someone can locate it and post it here then everyone can look at it from today's perspective and evaluate it. At that time I was not fully aware of the background and thought the byelaw change was good and only later found out it was not done with some altruistic motives. Recently a member from out of state was visiting and I met with her and during the meeting, the issue of Bing came up. She was still very upset with what happened to Bing and it was when I realized there are quite a number of members who have not forgotten about it. Certainly a new member is never going to find out about it until such time another similar issue shows up when the past historical background is again brought into focus. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 06:03:23 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <199701121103.GAA02116@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > >>take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking about >>temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. >That a temperature of -500 might be equivalent to a temperature of -1000 >does not make -500 equivalent to -1000. So ...you agree with the former statement? To the untrained eye, perhaps, it sounds (hehe) like you just repeated what he has said. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 06:10:33 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Unicorns Message-ID: <199701121110.GAA02302@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message , JRC > writes >>On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: >>> >>> There are unicorns on a planet 800 trillion light years away from us, >>>which is made of green cheese. > >Correct. I hae been there and seen them. The shade of green is most >pleasant, and the inhabitants are all lurkers on theos-l. The unicorns >are said to be trained in sticking their horn in unwelcome human >orifices, though I have not personally seen this happen. > >Anyone can verify the above by going into a state of suspended samadhic >and nirvanic meditation by holding their breath for three hours. The >return trip is rather long, and takes several lifetimes, but it is well >worth it. Postcards from the Green Cheese Souvenir Shoppe take a little >longer. > >Alan That hurt me.... --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 06:11:41 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701121111.GAA02366@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > writes >>h39 >> >z32 > >Alan ......BINGO!!!!!! --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 06:16:56 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <199701121116.GAA02440@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >Richard wrote: >I think, though, Richard, there is only one Kym. There is a Kim (spelled >with an 'i'), but there is only one Kym, as far as I know. Surely you're >not doing the unthinkable - grouping all women into one and calling them >Kyms, are you? You may not be seeing us as individuals. Say it isn't so, >Richard! > >HOWEVER! It warms my oh-so-hardened heart to know that you have been alert >to any gender jumblings. I surely do hope a few other fellas will follow >your lead. > > >>Tell me how I should be thinking about these things and I will undoubtedly >>cooperate (I've been married). . . . > >I look forward to your cooperation. > >I look forward to your future postings. > >I look forward to assimilating you. > >Resistance is futile. > >Kym > > Ok. I admit it. The last two statements were my personal additions. Kym should not be held responsible for those two statements. I thought it was funny. --- The Triaist(whistling and staring at the sky) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 06:20:31 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701121120.GAA02525@envirolink.org> JRC writes: >On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > >> In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins >> writes >> >h39 >> > >> z32 >> >w45 > I'm beginning to realize that this is not going to spell bingo. So far, I have no idea what... nevermind. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 06:21:46 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Chim Chim Cheerie Message-ID: <199701121121.GAA02564@envirolink.org> Mark Kusek writes: >Mary wrote: >>I don't see how something can be both real and illusory. > >"Real" to the senses. Illusory in relation to the Boundless. > >Mark Which makes reality relative. Just as relative as everything else. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:51:34 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32e8cf62.59343551@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 12 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >>>take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking about >>>temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. >>That a temperature of -500 might be equivalent to a temperature of -1000 >>does not make -500 equivalent to -1000. >So ...you agree with the former statement? To the untrained eye, perhaps, >it sounds (hehe) like you just repeated what he has said. Yes. I have heard that a temperature of -273 degrees fahrenheit is absolute 0, meaning that no temperature colder than that is possible. But I don't see what that has to do with any law of mathematics. And even if it did, without there being a change in the laws of physics (or whatever field studies temperature) the same thing will be true forever, since the laws of mathematics are eternal. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 08:56:31 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <199701121356.IAA07785@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >>So ...you agree with the former statement? To the untrained eye, perhaps, >>it sounds (hehe) like you just repeated what he has said. >Yes. I have heard that a temperature of -273 degrees fahrenheit is >absolute 0, meaning that no temperature colder than that is possible. But >I don't see what that has to do with any law of mathematics. And even if >it did, without there being a change in the laws of physics (or whatever >field studies temperature) the same thing will be true forever, since the >laws of mathematics are eternal. I think I agree with you in regards to this string. One of the many things that works well with the Platonic philosophy is mathematics. Mathematics is indeed eternal and changeless. The only thing that changes is the discovery of new ways to work with it, and the language and symbols used to describe utilize it. Titus said something in another post that I have to agree with as well. Invention and discovery go hand in hand. With mathematics it is particularly true. One can only discover the laws of mathematics if s/he invents a way to describe her/his discovery. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:55:10 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments - reply to Message-ID: <199701121404.JAA06671@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Eldon B. Tucker > > It's possible to deflate certain ideas, or defuse an explosive discussion, > without getting into a personal fight. I use that technique myself most of the time, but there are individuals who have no use for that and come out screaming in the hope that someone will scream back. Perhaps this is the "wake me up" technique of people who are yearning to stay up all night via adrenalin. > > Also, given the wide spectrum of views we have on the list, it's possible > to have all extremes represented. I don't expect people to generally > change their views to accord with the majority, but would expect people > to learn more respectful ways of self-expression, that result in an > exchange of ideas and positive interchanges, rather than a bringing up of > barriers and bitter fights. There's the part that rubs me raw. "I . . . would expect people to learn more respectful ways of self-expression," What if your expectations are never realized and certain individuals cling to their ways? I personally don't expect anyone to be anything than what they are, even if they are flame-throwers on the Net. Not one of us has the right to "expect" another person to change. We can hope, but "expecting" is taking away that person's freedom to make their own decision about their own behavior. > > Learning to be more careful about writing is a lesson we've all learned > as we participate in these discussions. Your confrontations of him may > help Tom accelerate the process whereby he acquires greater diplomacy, > subtly, and interpersonal insight in his writings. And perhaps if Richard > Ihle steps in, he'll get accelerated practice in wit and dry humor. Are we sending Tom to charm school here? Grooming him in the arts of cyberspeak so that he'll post sweet as sugar? Perhaps he represents the dark side that we are forced to confront through his viewpoints and flame-bait. A mailing list without some controversy or conflict is going to be boring as Hades. Any individual that come onto the list with opposite opinions becomes the Trickster that we need to make things run. My two cents. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 08:10:16 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701121518.KAA26295@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC > > On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > > In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > > writes > > >h39 > > > > > z32 > > > w45 > L42! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 08:21:08 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701121518.KAA26305@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > On Sun, 12 Jan 97, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: > > >I am consistently getting posts from you that have the > >ends chopped off. But not from anyone else. Have any ideas what's going > >on? > > The ends chopped off? If this means that you are not getting the whole > message of my messages, then you don't know what you're missing. Or does > it mean that there is a line-width problem? Maybe a problem with your service provider? If I'm not receiving the totality of your brilliancy, there may be others that are being deprived of this wisdom. Perhaps it will be karmically fortuitous to look into this. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:31:10 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments - reply to Message-ID: <32d8fe67.438081@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 12 Jan 97, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: >---------- >> From: Eldon B. Tucker >> Also, given the wide spectrum of views we have on the list, it's possible >> to have all extremes represented. I don't expect people to generally >> change their views to accord with the majority, but would expect people >> to learn more respectful ways of self-expression, that result in an >> exchange of ideas and positive interchanges, rather than a bringing up of >> barriers and bitter fights. > >There's the part that rubs me raw. "I . . . would expect people to learn >more respectful ways of self-expression," What if your expectations are >never realized and certain individuals cling to their ways? I personally >don't expect anyone to be anything than what they are, even if they >are flame-throwers on the Net. Not one of us has the right to "expect" >another person to change. We can hope, but "expecting" is taking away >that person's freedom to make their own decision about their own >behavior. Not "expecting" people to change and approving of evil are two very different things. >> Learning to be more careful about writing is a lesson we've all learned >> as we participate in these discussions. Your confrontations of him may >> help Tom accelerate the process whereby he acquires greater diplomacy, >> subtly, and interpersonal insight in his writings. And perhaps if Richard >> Ihle steps in, he'll get accelerated practice in wit and dry humor. > >Are we sending Tom to charm school here? Grooming him in the >arts of cyberspeak so that he'll post sweet as sugar? > >Perhaps he represents the dark side that we are forced to confront >through his viewpoints and flame-bait. There is a significant moral difference between "flame-bait," which, as far as I can tell, merely means "whatever the majority disagrees with," and "flames," which are patently the antithesis of what is conducive to a spirit of brotherhood. Disagreements do not affect civil discussion. Personal attacks do. That you approve of personal attacks made by those with whom you agree and disapprove of those who disagree with you means that you sanction, and therefore deserve, to be personally attacked yourself. I'll let that be your karma, though, rather than incur the same kind of weighty karma that bitter hypocrites like JRC have built up for themselves. >A mailing list without some >controversy or conflict is going to be boring as Hades. The blindness to the distinction between an evil spirit and disagreement that this statement reflects is astonishing. Come to the Seattle Lodge of the TS some time. There, you will see all conceivable disagreements freely expressed, particularly in the way those who have been members for almost 80 years go out of their way to encourage newcomers to say whatever they think (with, of course, the important caveat that Alice Bailey's name never be mentioned, since, after all, this _is_ the TS, and we have our limits) with never a sign of any kind of personal insults of which you are so fond. It makes this list look like a war zone. And the last thing it is is BORING. THAT is my idea of brotherhood. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 12 11:23:55 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701121623.LAA15826@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >---------- >> From: JRC >> >> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: >> >> > In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins >> > writes >> > >h39 >> > > >> > z32 >> > >> w45 >> >L42! If anyone was going to write 42, I knew it would be you. Perhaps you did it for different reasons than I believe you did, but either way, I knew you'd do it. Did the "L" signify anything?, or did you pick the letter out of thin air? --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:18:48 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: The War between the Bostons Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, m.k. ramadoss wrote: > > Some how I missed the letter from Algeo you referred to in your post. If > you or someone can locate it and post it here then everyone can look at > it from today's perspective and evaluate it. Yes - actually I think it would be quite interesting - it was a long time ago now, but I'll contact my friend and see if a copy is buried in his files. > At that time I was not fully aware of the background and thought the > byelaw change was good and only later found out it was not done with some > altruistic motives. Your experience is probably the norm. The same thing, I think, holds for the latest Bylaw changes. Presented in the AT as minor housekeeping changes to a membership that had not been informed of the Boston situation. > Recently a member from out of state was visiting and I met with her and > during the meeting, the issue of Bing came up. She was still very upset > with what happened to Bing and it was when I realized there are quite a > number of members who have not forgotten about it. Certainly a new member > is never going to find out about it until such time another similar issue > shows up when the past historical background is again brought into focus. Actually - I suspect there are large number of people that are *still* very upset about what was done to Bing. The issue has not died, and in an election down the road, Algeo might experience what many would call "karma". Regards, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:15:45 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments - reply to Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > > Not "expecting" people to change and approving of evil are two very > different things. Wow. Now I'm "evil". An unexpected honor. > There is a significant moral difference between "flame-bait," which, as far > as I can tell, merely means "whatever the majority disagrees with," and > "flames," which are patently the antithesis of what is conducive to a > spirit of brotherhood. Lots of people disagree with majority opinions here without being flame-bait. Those who make delibrately inflammatory comments generally get the flames they seek. > Disagreements do not affect civil discussion. > Personal attacks do. That you approve of personal attacks made by those > with whom you agree and disapprove of those who disagree with you means > that you sanction, and therefore deserve, to be personally attacked > yourself. I'll let that be your karma, though, rather than incur the same > kind of weighty karma that bitter hypocrites like JRC have built up for > themselves. *Way* cool. I've gone beyond "hypocrite" and entered the rarefied and distinguished realm of the "bitter" hypocrite with weighty karma. Actually, you seem as though you'd quite like to get the job of "Lord of Karma" - you could visit your retribution on all you judge. Curious that you'll accuse Ann of approving or disapproving on the basis of her personal agreement ... in the same post as you say that when you flame people you are apparently fighting "evil", while when people flame you, they are accumulating "weighty" karma. Wow - not only do you feel qualified to judge who has or has not the right to call themself a "Theosophist", you now feel qualified to make definitive statements about who is accumulating karma - and apparently the complex question of karma can now be easily answered (this should end all those needless discussions on the list): Definition: Negative karma is stuff that pisses Tom Robertson off. Positive karma is stuff that pleases Tom Robertson. We can call it the "Robertson Standard for Karmic Calculations". How wonderful that you'd call me a hypocrite for making personal attacks in a post where you personally attack me. > > >A mailing list without some > >controversy or conflict is going to be boring as Hades. > > The blindness to the distinction between an evil spirit and disagreement > that this statement reflects is astonishing. Oooohhhh ... the old "you're blind" argument. Tell me Tom - is calling someone a "bitter hypocrite with weighty karma" an "evil spirit" or merely a "disagreement"? I suspect a considerable number of people are "blind" to the distinction you make. > Come to the Seattle Lodge of > the TS some time. There, you will see all conceivable disagreements freely > expressed, particularly in the way those who have been members for almost > 80 years go out of their way to encourage newcomers to say whatever they > think As is the case with most Lodges. But this on-line Lodge has considerably more diversity than most Lodges. > (with, of course, the important caveat that Alice Bailey's name never > be mentioned, since, after all, this _is_ the TS, and we have our limits) Very curious that you would continue commenting on a situation that you have not investigated, claim to have no intention of investigating, and say you have minimal interest in. > with never a sign of any kind of personal insults of which you are so fond. > It makes this list look like a war zone. And the last thing it is is > BORING. THAT is my idea of brotherhood. > Perhaps you'd like me to offer a dozen *personal attacks* you've made against individuals on this list. And again, when you cease to attack *me*, I'll cease to respond with attacks. If you approach me with an elevated tone, I will so respond to you. It is completely within your power to harmonize part of the feeling that this list is a "war zone". And yet you continue to attack. Its getting more and more difficult for you to appear as a poor innocent "fighter of evil". -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:32:48 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: conservatism Message-ID: <32eb3c23.16242860@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 12 Jan 97, liesel f. deutsch wrote: >> The >>costs of organizing a nation of tens of millions of people are >>proportionally greater, and so it should be more decentralized and >>competitive. > >Agree with decentralized.,... but why "competitive"? In a decentralized society, competition maximizes efficiency due to how it encourages specialization. More generally, competition is necessary for evolution. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:10:04 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments - reply to Message-ID: <199701121949.OAA13719@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments - reply to > Date: Sunday, January 12, 1997 9:35 AM > > There is a significant moral difference between "flame-bait," which, as far > as I can tell, merely means "whatever the majority disagrees with," and > "flames," which are patently the antithesis of what is conducive to a > spirit of brotherhood. Disagreements do not affect civil discussion. > Personal attacks do. That you approve of personal attacks made by those > with whom you agree and disapprove of those who disagree with you means > that you sanction, and therefore deserve, to be personally attacked > yourself. . . . Me?!! I'm never personally attacked because I have an Attack-O-Meter attached to my computer. If one nasty post flies in from cyberspace, a buzzer goes off and I immediately delete it. Each unwanted message is accompanied by a small demon symbol on the screen. They be gone in no time short. > > The blindness to the distinction between an evil spirit and disagreement > that this statement reflects is astonishing. Come to the Seattle Lodge of > the TS some time. Are you sending me a plane ticket? First class, please. >There, you will see all conceivable disagreements freely > expressed, particularly in the way those who have been members for almost > 80 years . . . Eighty years!! Did they join at birth? > go out of their way to encourage newcomers to say whatever they > think (with, of course, the important caveat that Alice Bailey's name never > be mentioned, since, after all, this _is_ the TS, and we have our limits) Boooooooo :-( Can I come over some time and start spouting Bailey to make trouble? Can I bring Cosimano? > with never a sign of any kind of personal insults of which you are so fond. > It makes this list look like a war zone. And the last thing it is is > BORING. THAT is my idea of brotherhood. Well, whoopee for you, big boy! BTW, did I actually get your complete post? Was there something missing? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:02:28 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <970112160227_815214449@emout04.mail.aol.com> Ann, Sounds like fun to me. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:02:34 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Personal survival Message-ID: <970112160233_1526345792@emout13.mail.aol.com> Alan, Not quite. But I keep trying. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:02:39 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <970112160238_1857611201@emout16.mail.aol.com> This is one of the reasons that anyone in the TS should make sure that all their immoralities are as public as possible. Then when anyone makes an accusation, everyone else will giggle embarrassdly and say "What else is new?" As a great politician who followed that philosophy once said "The only scandal that could hurt me would be if I were found in bed with a dead woman or a live boy." Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:02:44 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The War between the Bostons Message-ID: <970112160242_1991827905@emout17.mail.aol.com> "But first I would remark that there must needs be painful scenes When Theosophic gents begin to give each other beans. And tho Mahatma missives do pan out a little queer We should avoid disturbance in the Mahatmosphere." Isis Very Much Unveiled The whole mess involving the two elections that Bing opposed Dorothy in is a very complicate one. Neither side was blameless. And being up to my ears in the 1990 disaster taught me never to get involved in TS politics again. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:05:50 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Limits of Free Will Message-ID: <32D9522E.B2A@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > >Tom Robertson wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > You are saying that 2 + 2 = 5. > > I don't see how my statement does that. Philosophy seeks truth about the > non-physical universe. Science seeks truth about the physical universe. > Are you saying that there is no objective philosophical truth to seek? That is what I am talking about. Language, like mathematics, is a tool for communication. If you change definitions to suit your own needs, then you lose the ability to communicate, just like if you change the rules of mathematics to suit your own needs, then you lose the capacity to communicate. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:21:18 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32D955CE.4A8E@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > > As far as the cancellation of charters in Canada and Denmark etc. no one who > has first hand access to the information has come forth and explained why > the charter was cancelled. Cancellation of a National Section Charter is not > a simple or easy decision at the highest level, especially at a time the > membership world wide is perhaps at its lowest and perhaps shrinking. So > there should be some valid and strong reasons. The questions is what is > preventing anyone who knows full facts to come out with details. > > Again why the secrecy? What or who is/are being protected? There WAS an official explanation of Canada: According to Canadian law, the Canadian section lost some tax breaks by being part of the Theosophical Society (Canadian only organizations got breaks which organizations that were part of an international organziation did not get). The Canadian section therefore amended its bylaws so that it no longer declared itself to be part of the Theosophical Society. The Theosophical Society therefore revoked its charter; if it allowed the Canadian section to keep its charter, then it would have been participating in a fraud. Now, it is certainly a matter of debate whether or not it would have been a legal fiction or a fraud, and it certainly is possible that, being composed of human beings, factors other than strictly legal ones influenced which way Adyar made the decision. And I am not aware exactly how much money was at stake; for example, whether it would have been enough to destroy the Canadian section. But the reason was completely valid. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:27:06 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <32D9572A.3D0E@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > You've got the wrong part of your inconsistency wrong. Men and women _are_ > different, and there is nothing wrong with making generalizations saying > how they are different. There is quite a bit wrong with making generalizations, if one attempts to use those generalizations to force an individual into a pigeonhole into which they do not belong. And if you state those generalizations correctly. For example: >Women _are_ more compassionate and cooperative than men. All one needs to disprove that is to find one given man who is more cooperative and compassionate than one woman. One must label generalizations as such; if you had stated, "In general, women are more compassionate and cooperative than men", it would be far more difficult to disprove. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:28:43 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32D9578B.7679@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > >take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking >about temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. > > That a temperature of -500 might be equivalent to a temperature of -1000 > does not make -500 equivalent to -1000. That is correct. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:37:08 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments - reply to Message-ID: <32ee5928.23671796@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 12 Jan 97, "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: >---------- >> From: Tom Robertson >those who have been members for almost 80 years . . . > >Eighty years!! Did they join at birth? How long do you think Dora Kunz has been a member? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:39:52 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <32D95A28.6EA4@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! > Long live theosophy!" One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will be dead. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:48:40 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <32f05a81.24016395@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 12 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Tom Robertson wrote: >>Men and women _are_ different, and there is nothing wrong with making >>generalizations saying how they are different. > There is quite a bit wrong with making generalizations, if one >attempts to use those generalizations to force an individual into a >pigeonhole into which they do not belong. What does that have to do with anything I said? >>Women _are_ more compassionate and cooperative than men. > > All one needs to disprove that is to find one given man who is more >cooperative and compassionate than one woman. One must label generalizations as such; if you had stated, "In general, women are more compassionate and cooperative than men", it would be far more difficult to disprove. The default is the other way around. Since part of the definition of a generalization is that it _has_ exceptions, only absolute statements made the way I said this one need to be specified. If I had meant that the least compassionate and cooperative woman is more compassionate and cooperative than the most compassionate and cooperative man, then I would have had to qualify my statement with the word "all" before both the word "women" and the word "men." My statement is correct as it stands. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:54:48 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: 3 objects Message-ID: <32D95DA8.5350@sprynet.com> Murray Stentiford wrote: > An excellent book on Therapeutic Touch is Janet Macrae's "Therapeutic Touch > - a practical guide". In some ways, it's clearer and more accessible than > those by Krieger etc. Janet is in charge of TT at the New York Theosophical Society, and is one of the nicest people I know. For those in the New York area, she will be giving a course in meditation this spring (we haven't worked out the exact dates yet). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 17:15:40 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32D9628C.4E76@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > Yes. I have heard that a temperature of -273 degrees fahrenheit is > absolute 0, meaning that no temperature colder than that is possible. But > I don't see what that has to do with any law of mathematics. And even if > it did, without there being a change in the laws of physics (or whatever > field studies temperature) the same thing will be true forever, since the > laws of mathematics are eternal. Once again, with feeling: Mathematics is an entirely man-made, artificial construct. It is as eternal as a circle, since it is entirely made up of circular reasoning. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 15:36:16 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > >>Women _are_ more compassionate and cooperative than men. > > > > All one needs to disprove that is to find one given man who is more > >cooperative and compassionate than one woman. One must label generalizations as such; if you had stated, "In general, women are more compassionate and cooperative than men", it would be far more difficult to disprove. > > The default is the other way around. Since part of the definition of a > generalization is that it _has_ exceptions, only absolute statements made > the way I said this one need to be specified. If I had meant that the > least compassionate and cooperative woman is more compassionate and > cooperative than the most compassionate and cooperative man, then I would > have had to qualify my statement with the word "all" before both the word > "women" and the word "men." My statement is correct as it stands. Your statement, as it stands, is an opinion. It would become correct if you defined the terms "compassionate" and "cooperative" (as people use these words with many meanings) and then offered some evidence that, given your definitions, there is objective grounds for making such a generalization. Science often makes generalizations that can be considered correct or incorrect - one can state, for instance, that only women have the ability to lactate, or that only women have the ability to have long hair. Evidence can be used to say that the first is "correct" (as a generalization - there are always biological anomolies) , while the second generalization is "incorrect". But stating an opinion in the form of a generalization is just that: the assertion of an personal opinion. It is only possible to begin speaking of "correct" or "incorrect" when evidence (which in this case would likely have to be statistical studies of the global population of men and women to be valid) begins to be presented, and the methodology of the evidence gathering and analysis is open to investigation. It is the evidence gathering, processing, and analysis functions that differentiates a generalization that has grounds in objective reality from one that is simply a personal opinion, a personal or cultural bias, or a folk tale. Regards, -JRC [PS. This post is not a flame.] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:43:27 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32f46888.27607007@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 12 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Mathematics is an entirely man-made, artificial construct. It is as >eternal as a circle, since it is entirely made up of circular reasoning. Mathematics is a discovery of objectively-existing laws. No one can decide what these laws are. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 18:19:23 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701130023.TAA28427@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: I Me Mine > Date: Sunday, January 12, 1997 10:27 AM > > Ann E. Bermingham writes: > >---------- > >> From: JRC > >> > >> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > >> > >> > In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > >> > writes > >> > >h39 > >> > > > >> > z32 > >> > > >> w45 > >> > >L42! > If anyone was going to write 42, I knew it would be you. Perhaps you did it > for different reasons than I believe you did, but either way, I knew you'd do > it. Did the "L" signify anything?, or did you pick the letter out of thin air? > --- In Doug Adam's book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", the answer to the ultimate question of Life was 42. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 01:45:32 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: the Boston Lodge (Regarding hardline arguments) Message-ID: <4UqYWjA8IE2yEwHA@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <2.2.32.19970112011041.0069d680@mail.eden.com>, M K Ramadoss writes >as a Russian Proverb says: > > "Trust but Verify". > >In money and property matters, this is the most satisfactory way to get the >air cleared of any inaccurate information that may be floating around. Until >such time more light is shone on the issue and everybody sees the whole >picture and understand why a certain action was taken or why a certain >action was not taken, the issue is not easily going to go away. With more >subscribers getting on theos-l, more of them would be wondering what is the >real story. > >Any supporters and cheerers are welcome to join me on the above point of view!!! MORE APPLAUSE AND APPROBATION! Alan (OK?) :-) --------- 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, 12 Jan 1997 16:35:48 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: You don't have to cry Message-ID: <32D9834C.7DDC@withoutwalls.com> >>Mary wrote: >>>I don't see how something can be both real and illusory. >> >>"Real" to the senses. Illusory in relation to the Boundless. >> >>Mark >Which makes reality relative. Just as relative as everything else. "You are living a reality I left years ago - it quite nearly killed me. In the long run it will make you cry make you crazy and old before your time" Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:08:37 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970113010837.006b80d8@mail.eden.com> At 04:24 PM 1/12/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> As far as the cancellation of charters in Canada and Denmark etc. no one who >> has first hand access to the information has come forth and explained why >> the charter was cancelled. Cancellation of a National Section Charter is not >> a simple or easy decision at the highest level, especially at a time the >> membership world wide is perhaps at its lowest and perhaps shrinking. So >> there should be some valid and strong reasons. The questions is what is >> preventing anyone who knows full facts to come out with details. >> >> Again why the secrecy? What or who is/are being protected? > > There WAS an official explanation of Canada: According to Canadian law, >the Canadian section lost some tax breaks by being part of the >Theosophical Society (Canadian only organizations got breaks which >organizations that were part of an international organziation did not >get). The Canadian section therefore amended its bylaws so that it no >longer declared itself to be part of the Theosophical Society. The >Theosophical Society therefore revoked its charter; if it allowed the >Canadian section to keep its charter, then it would have been >participating in a fraud. > > Now, it is certainly a matter of debate whether or not it would have >been a legal fiction or a fraud, and it certainly is possible that, >being composed of human beings, factors other than strictly legal ones >influenced which way Adyar made the decision. And I am not aware exactly >how much money was at stake; for example, whether it would have been >enough to destroy the Canadian section. But the reason was completely >valid. > > Bart Lidofsky I am very glad to see your message. Do you have access to any supporting documentation such as transcripts of the General Council discussions on the Canadian situation *from* *the* *time* the problem started. Any verifiable documentation will help. While I trust what you are saying -- I trust every body -- I like to *verify* first hand. I am sure there are many others here who would also be eager to see supporting documentation. I would be very willing to reimburse from my *personal* funds, the cost of duplicating the documents, if I am provided an estimate of the cost in advance. Is there is any one who can provide authentic verifiable info on what went on at Denmark and any other place where the charters were cancelled in the last 25 years it would be very interesting. IMHO, it is important to keep in mind that if the charter of some of the countries has been cancelled, charter of every country is at risk -- along with the valuable real estate which may end up under the total control of a few individuals. Again thanks for you information. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:12:45 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Trust but Verify Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970113011245.006df72c@mail.eden.com> Thanks for everyone who has supported the above motto. May be it is time to add to "There is No Religion Higher Than Truth", the motto, "Trust but Verify". Is not the latter by coincidence from Russia, the mother country of HPB. I am sure if she is reading this from whereever she is, she will be filled with great joy that we are paying attention to a Russian Proverb. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:10:03 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701130110.UAA00634@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > > Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! > > Long live theosophy!" > > One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will > be dead. > And so will you! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 19:20:23 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701130158.UAA26622@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > There is a new book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and The > Rajagopals". As Krishnamurti lived in Adyar for several years and as many > consider him to be a very keen observer, there are two quotes in the above > book which I think might interest some here: > > > In 1933 K wrote to Emily Lutyens after Besant's death "I'm completely out > of it all," "their illusions, their fight for power & their so-called > occultism. Adyar is lovely but the people are DEAD." > Early last year someone recommended that I read Emily Lutyens "Candles in the Sun" (1957). After Christmas, I went to Quest Books and they told me it was out of print and also, not in the library. Does anyone have any information about where I could get this book and/or Mary Lutyens' new book? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:02:16 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <970112210216_1958312609@emout16.mail.aol.com> Yes, Alan Bain, Bart Lidofsky, Chuck Cosimano, and everyone else on this list will be dead by sometime in the 21st century. So what's the point? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:06:49 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <970112210649_373855402@emout12.mail.aol.com> Ann, I don't know where you could find it now, but Candles in the Sun used to be in the Olcott Library but was probably purged for telling the truth. It has been gone for some years now. And considering the condition it was in and the subject matter, I doubt anyone stole it, which is, of course, what we would be told. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 01:56:27 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: In message <32D95A28.6EA4@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: >> So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! >> Long live theosophy!" > > One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will >be dead. > > Bart Lidofsky Not all of it. What is the point you ae trying to make, if any? 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, 13 Jan 1997 01:39:25 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <0ZmLVUANJZ2yEw2C@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message , JRC writes >On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > >> In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins >> writes >> >h39 >> > >> z32 >> >w45 > >-JRC > Damn! 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, 12 Jan 1997 22:36:34 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <970112223633_614759705@emout11.mail.aol.com> << >In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > writes >>h39 >> >z32 >> c42 w24 h36 Godspeed, Dolly Parton From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:27:13 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) (by way of blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell)) Subject: Re: Personal survival: A QUESTION TO MICHAEL ROGG ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS Message-ID: <199701130427.VAA27941@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Re: Personal survival: A QUESTION TO MICHAEL ROGG ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS In a recent posting on Theos-l, Michael Rogg wrote in part: "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." On Michael's WWW homepage, he says that "proof of their [the Masters'] existence has never been found." I have a question, Michael. Have you had a chance to read K. Paul Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED and my critique [HOUSE OF CARDS] of his thesis on the Masters M. and K.H? In both his book and my critique you will find testimony by Henry Olcott and others on their encounters with these two Masters. How do you explain these experiences especially in light of your statement that "communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite a solid appearance"? I have studied the history of spiritualism for more than twenty years and I have never found accounts in the spiritualistic literature that would parallel the testimonies concerning the Theosophical Masters. K. Paul Johnson and I do not see eye to eye on many things, but we do, I believe, agree that there is evidence indicating that at least the Master "Koot Hoomi" was a living flesh and blood person and not some ectoplasmic manifestation materialized through Blavatsky's "mediumship." Have you read these accounts by Olcott and others? And how do you explain these accounts? You raise good questions but your narratives on Theos-l and on your homepage about HPB, mediumship, the Masters and spiritualism are couched in very vague, non-specific language and do not grapple with the detailed accounts as given by Olcott and other witnesses to HPB's phenomena and the encounters with the Mahatmas. Some of this rich, detailed testimony has been published in my 1991 book titled THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. In the last year I have been studying the remarkable mediumship of the Reverend Francis Monck, a contemporary of Blavatsky's. I may try to post on Theos-l some of the accounts of his materializations in full light. I do agree that most Theosophists and even Blavatsky students appear to be uninformed about the history of spiritualism and its interrelationship with the history of Theosophy and Blavatsky. Much of what is written on mediumship and life after death in THE MAHATMAS LETTERS is not apparently fully appreciated by students of these letters; I believe one of the reasons is the fact that most students and readers of these letters do not have a good background understanding of spiritualism, its phenomena and teachings. For example, a careful reading of LIGHT magazine during the years 1881-1895 is very informative for the student of Blavatsky and Theosophy. What books on spiritualism would you (Michael) recommend for interested Theos-l readers? I will try to post in the near future a number of "reference books" which give good overviews and a great deal of detail on spiritualism, its phenomena, its teachings, and its history. Michael, I agree that the book CONJURING UP PHILIP: An Adventure in Psychokinesis by Iris M. Owen and Margaret Sparrow is a very important book. I would suggest any interested Blavatsky student should read CONJURING UP PHILIP in conjunction with THE OCCULT WORLD (1881) written by A.P. Sinnett. A comparison of these two books and some of the ideas enunciated in both works will lead to some interesting insights and conclusions. Writing this posting reminded me of a work I did in 1989 titled KRIYASHAKTI CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS: The Psychology of the Visionary Experience which gives the Theosophical perspective as given in the writings of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas. I think I will prepare it for publication on the World Wide Web. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:27:13 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) (by way of blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell)) Subject: Re: Personal survival: A QUESTION TO MICHAEL ROGG ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS Message-ID: <199701130427.VAA27941@mailhost.azstarnet.com> Re: Personal survival: A QUESTION TO MICHAEL ROGG ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL MASTERS In a recent posting on Theos-l, Michael Rogg wrote in part: "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." On Michael's WWW homepage, he says that "proof of their [the Masters'] existence has never been found." I have a question, Michael. Have you had a chance to read K. Paul Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED and my critique [HOUSE OF CARDS] of his thesis on the Masters M. and K.H? In both his book and my critique you will find testimony by Henry Olcott and others on their encounters with these two Masters. How do you explain these experiences especially in light of your statement that "communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite a solid appearance"? I have studied the history of spiritualism for more than twenty years and I have never found accounts in the spiritualistic literature that would parallel the testimonies concerning the Theosophical Masters. K. Paul Johnson and I do not see eye to eye on many things, but we do, I believe, agree that there is evidence indicating that at least the Master "Koot Hoomi" was a living flesh and blood person and not some ectoplasmic manifestation materialized through Blavatsky's "mediumship." Have you read these accounts by Olcott and others? And how do you explain these accounts? You raise good questions but your narratives on Theos-l and on your homepage about HPB, mediumship, the Masters and spiritualism are couched in very vague, non-specific language and do not grapple with the detailed accounts as given by Olcott and other witnesses to HPB's phenomena and the encounters with the Mahatmas. Some of this rich, detailed testimony has been published in my 1991 book titled THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. In the last year I have been studying the remarkable mediumship of the Reverend Francis Monck, a contemporary of Blavatsky's. I may try to post on Theos-l some of the accounts of his materializations in full light. I do agree that most Theosophists and even Blavatsky students appear to be uninformed about the history of spiritualism and its interrelationship with the history of Theosophy and Blavatsky. Much of what is written on mediumship and life after death in THE MAHATMAS LETTERS is not apparently fully appreciated by students of these letters; I believe one of the reasons is the fact that most students and readers of these letters do not have a good background understanding of spiritualism, its phenomena and teachings. For example, a careful reading of LIGHT magazine during the years 1881-1895 is very informative for the student of Blavatsky and Theosophy. What books on spiritualism would you (Michael) recommend for interested Theos-l readers? I will try to post in the near future a number of "reference books" which give good overviews and a great deal of detail on spiritualism, its phenomena, its teachings, and its history. Michael, I agree that the book CONJURING UP PHILIP: An Adventure in Psychokinesis by Iris M. Owen and Margaret Sparrow is a very important book. I would suggest any interested Blavatsky student should read CONJURING UP PHILIP in conjunction with THE OCCULT WORLD (1881) written by A.P. Sinnett. A comparison of these two books and some of the ideas enunciated in both works will lead to some interesting insights and conclusions. Writing this posting reminded me of a work I did in 1989 titled KRIYASHAKTI CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS: The Psychology of the Visionary Experience which gives the Theosophical perspective as given in the writings of Blavatsky and the Mahatmas. I think I will prepare it for publication on the World Wide Web. Daniel Caldwell From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:38:33 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: subjective reality Message-ID: <199701130438.UAA13808@proxy1.ba.best.com> M. Poppins: >TTT: >>If it is true that all life must support itself by killing, >then as humans, we have the choice to limit the extent of the >killing we do. Some of us uses Lysol and Raid, but will not >eat meat. >Just as various economic benefits can be gained at less cost, >so can life be purchased at lower levels of killing. (snip) >In some societies, the elderly ill volunteer to die rather >than be a burden. "You can't put a price tag on human life" >would only be true if money was unlimited. What if treating >one ill person stops us from treating 10 others? This relates to an interesting article I read this morning regarding apoptosis, in which a cell basically commits suicide if something is wrong with itself, for the good of the whole life organism. All animal cells have built in it a program that causes it to self-destruct if it has been infected, injured, or separated from other cells. When this process fails, the defective cell does not self-destruct, multiplies crazily, and becomes either a tumor or cancer. On the other hand, an opposite reaction could occur, in which a cell is tricked into self-destructing (such as the T-cells in HIV patients. This elimination of T-cells open the patient to fatal infections and diseases). In fact, this self-destruct program is constantly ready to act, and is stopped from doing so by having constant signals of reassurance from tiny proteins, like a self-help group. In the law of cells, death is necessary for maintaining the life of the whole organism. Since t/Theosophy, in my amateur knowledge of it, basically states that monads goes from beyond molecular levels to beyond universal levels, I wonder whether cellular suicide also applies to the dynamics of the human community. There will always be the big factor of compassion. However, along with that, is the question of the survival of the whole community, of the whole planet. This brings up several questions. Is euthenasia necessary? Is the execution of dangerous criminals necessary? Is war necessary? Is disease necessary? TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:39:53 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701130439.UAA14820@proxy1.ba.best.com> Ann: >>>>In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins >>>> writes >>>>h39 >>>> >>> z32 >> >>w45 > >L42 O69 TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:38:38 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701130438.UAA13838@proxy1.ba.best.com> Bart Lidofsky: >One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan >Bain will be dead. Not if I modifed Chuckie's magical box to control his cells' self-destruct signal. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:39:47 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: humbleness Message-ID: <199701130439.UAA14799@proxy1.ba.best.com> Doss: >I think this is real Theosophy in action, even though she >does not know anything about Theosophy. I feel that we all have that basic undefinable something that causes us to come up with compassionate answers, whatever education, philosophy or religion we may have. I've always had it before I read up on anything. I am in the process of learning so that I may find words to describe my instinct(?), and maybe come up with several theories regarding its origination. Chances are, though, that I am learning so that I may knowingly unlearn, so that I may become that basic simple goodness. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:40:10 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <199701130440.UAA15025@proxy1.ba.best.com> Mary: >You've got the wrong part of your inconsistency wrong. Men >and women _are_ different, and there is nothing wrong with >making generalizations saying how they are different. Women >_are_ more compassionate and cooperative than men. Please refer to Murray Stentiford's totally excellent post a few weeks back. I don't want to spend the time trying to find it. Perhaps Murray has easy access to it. Mary, I am not going through that again, at least not on this list with the same people. Quote of my day: A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:39:28 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: humbleness Message-ID: <199701130439.UAA14611@proxy1.ba.best.com> Liesel: >TTT that idea is coming to pass. We have a supermarket chain >in Central NY, Wegman's, who give their employes paid time >off for community activities. It was written up in our >newspaper not too long ago. I don't remember everything the >employees do, but I remember that some of them helped tutor >school children. I was thinking the other day how to be more flexible with my idea. I was thinking that instead of 1 whole day off for all employees, the amount of both could be flexible, and the day could be various. I'm glad that this idea is happening. I wonder what caused that to come into being, and whether the companies had monetary incentives. P.S., please call me Thoa. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 20:38:55 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Humbleness Message-ID: <199701130438.UAA13942@proxy1.ba.best.com> Bee: >The first thing I did when I began to try this and got a bit >concerned about forgetting appointments etc, was to get >a calander with big squares for each day and I hung it in a >prominent place and made sure I wrote all things on it that I >wanted to remember and it was quite surprising how that eased >the panic. Now I automatically look there to see if I have >anything on for the day and if not then I cruise in the >moment without a care in the world :-) I have a huge appointment calendar, and dry-erase boards all over the place, for to dos, thoughts, and grocery list. >It seems to me that life begins to live itself through us when >we are still and can hear it. Things are just happening to me >at the moment and I feel as if I am standing by watching it all >happen. Yes, life is pretty amazing when one is still and listening, and enjoying each activity with care. TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 21:49:44 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Richard's measurements Message-ID: <199701130449.VAA05534@snowden.micron.net> Richard writes: >c42 >w24 >h36 > >Godspeed, > >Dolly Parton Your appreciation of women for their mind is why I just can't help but adore you. Those types of men are a rarity. How about, in the spirit of equality, you slap your body measurements on theos? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:43:16 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <970113004315_1724299317@emout07.mail.aol.com> Chuckie is working on it too. Who knows, we all may see the 22nd century. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:01:10 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > ---------- > > From: M K Ramadoss > > > > There is a new book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and The > > Rajagopals". As Krishnamurti lived in Adyar for several years and as many > > consider him to be a very keen observer, there are two quotes in the > above > > book which I think might interest some here: > > > > > > In 1933 K wrote to Emily Lutyens after Besant's death "I'm completely > out > > of it all," "their illusions, their fight for power & their so-called > > occultism. Adyar is lovely but the people are DEAD." > > > Early last year someone recommended that I read Emily Lutyens "Candles in > the Sun" (1957). After Christmas, I went to Quest Books and they told me > it > was out of print and also, not in the library. Does anyone have any > information about where I could get this book and/or Mary Lutyens' > new book? > > -AEB I believe the book may be out of print. Did you check with Olcott library? They may have a copy you may be able to borrow. If any one can locate a copy it would be JHE. It is a very interesting book. The title was chosen to signify the comparison between K and other leaders. Surely I have not seen anyone of his popularity since he started speaking. Last time when he came to San Antonio, there were over 2000 who came to hear him. It was a long time ago. If everything else fails, please contact me. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 13 03:24:32 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <199701130824.DAA22926@envirolink.org> Bart Lidofsky writes: Tom? writes: >> That a temperature of -500 might be equivalent to a temperature of -1000 >> does not make -500 equivalent to -1000. > > That is correct. Which goes back to numbers being "quantifying" adjectives. Not nouns. (Except in mathematics, as generally accepted, in which the numbers do qualify as nouns.) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 13 03:26:17 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701130826.DAA22983@envirolink.org> Bart Lidofsky writes: >Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: >> So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! >> Long live theosophy!" > > One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will >be dead. > > Bart Lidofsky Most assuredly at some point in that century, unless, of course, he knows something we don't... and ya never know...he just might...:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 13 03:30:16 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701130830.DAA23107@envirolink.org> >>Perhaps you did it >> for different reasons than I believe you did, but either way, I knew >you'd do >> it. Did the "L" signify anything?, or did you pick the letter out of >thin air? >> --- >In Doug Adam's book, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", the answer to >the ultimate question of Life was 42. > Life! ack, I should've figured that out. But I was right in my assumption of where you got 42. I think I shallpat myself on the back. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 13 03:32:28 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701130832.DAA23154@envirolink.org> Drpsionic@aol.com writes: >Yes, Alan Bain, Bart Lidofsky, Chuck Cosimano, and everyone else on this list >will be dead by sometime in the 21st century. > >So what's the point? I might make it. Everyone says I must'vce been born yesterday... hehehe. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 13 03:34:07 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701130834.DAA23215@envirolink.org> RIhle@aol.com writes: ><< >In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > > writes > >>h39 > >> > >z32 >> > >c42 >w24 >h36 > hehehe. that was crude...:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 13 03:41:04 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Richard's measurements Message-ID: <199701130841.DAA23562@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >Your appreciation of women for their mind is why I just can't help but adore >you. Those types of men are a rarity. > >How about, in the spirit of equality, you slap your body measurements on >theos? > >Kym Here's mine. chest 40 waist 30 Underwaist 30-34 mwahaha figure that one out. (I'm a sicko) Ok. That was uncalled for, but we were on the subject *shrug* --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:41:07 -0800 (PST) From: Martin Giuffrida Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701130841.AAA13010@freya.van.hookup.net> Titus Roth wrote: >It still seems like a big leap to say animals evolve. The general *Theosophical* view I once heard and found acceptable is that animals evolve from the animal kingdom into the human kingdom, as human evolve into the spiritual kingdom. There are angelic associations with animals, and the totality will not be simple. But from one perspective, animals set out upon group souls. When most animals die, their essence is re-absorbed into a group soul, but not as an individuality. Certain animals, probably along seven main streams, associate closely with human beings. These are the domesticated dog, cat, horse, elephant, etc. Some animals are recognized for their uncanny manifestation of a remarkable 'personality'. At a certain point an animal, through tutilage and influence of human beings is brought to the portal of 'individuation' in which the life passes into the beginning stage of a human soul. Just a small window on one person's gleanings. Blessings, Martin. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:03:01 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) Subject: [KH's LETTER] Message-ID: Hi All, I was wondering whether the person who posted a copy of KH's letter of 1900 could repost it, because I think I accidentally deleted it. Thanks in advance. Love and Light Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:29:25 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science Message-ID: Bart, I have to disagree with you on your remarks made about philosopy and science. Philosophy is the study of ideas which characterise the whole, both the physical and non-physical realms. Science is the proof of the ideas presented. Granted,exoteric science is the study of the physical universe, but ofcourse one also has the esoteric sciences which study the subjective. To try to suggest that the two disciplines are the same, ie. simply "Science" is I believe not the case, though they can complement each other! Then, there is the philosopy of science which is the study of how to go about proving the philosophical ideas through scientific method. I suppose this splits the esotericist from the exoteric scientists because they study the interplay of the objective and subjective from two different stand points. Speaking about mathematics, I would say that mathematics is a subset of scientific method. One can use the same symbols to mean something completely different as long as you tell others what the symbols in your system actually mean. Then you don't lose communication. I think you could suggest that languages such as English are mathematical in nature, one "adds" up letters to form a word which has definite meaning to the native linguist, but to an Englishman who hasn't studied French the "mathematics" are going to be incomprehensible. Love and Light Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:52:09 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <32e30fc1.70415607@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 13 Jan 97, Martin Giuffrida wrote: >Titus Roth wrote: > >>It still seems like a big leap to say animals evolve. > >The general *Theosophical* view I once heard and found acceptable is that >animals evolve from the animal kingdom into the human kingdom, as human >evolve into the spiritual kingdom. There are angelic associations with >animals, and the totality will not be simple. But from one perspective, >animals set out upon group souls. When most animals die, their essence is >re-absorbed into a group soul, but not as an individuality. > >Certain animals, probably along seven main streams, associate closely with >human beings. These are the domesticated dog, cat, horse, elephant, etc. >Some animals are recognized for their uncanny manifestation of a remarkable >'personality'. At a certain point an animal, through tutilage and influence >of human beings is brought to the portal of 'individuation' in which the >life passes into the beginning stage of a human soul. This is the theory that makes the most sense to me, and is compatible with saying that individual animals do not evolve, at least past their lifetimes. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:31:30 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: 1900 Letter from Master K.H. Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970113153130.00683c44@mail.eden.com> In response to a request, I am re-posting the famous 1900 Letter from Master K.H. It appears that as far as TS is concerned, it is more relevant today as it was relevant in 1900. Many here has seen this letter and those who have not seen it may find it interesting. ============================================= THE 1900 LETTER A psychic and a pranayamist who has got confused by the vagaries of the members. The T.S. and its members are slowly manufacturing a creed. Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity breeds credulity and ends in hypocrisy." How few are they who can know anything about us. Are we to be propitiated and made idols of. IS THE WORSHIP OF A NEW TRINITY MADE UP OF THE BLESSED M., UPASIKA AND YOURSELF TO TAKE THE PLACE OF EXPLODED CREEDS. WE ASK NOT FOR THE WORSHIP OF OURSELVES. THE DISCIPLE SHOULD IN NO WAY BE FETTERED. BEWARE OF AN ESOTERIC POPERY. The intense desire to see Upasika reincarnate at once has raised a misleading Mayavic ideation. Upasika has useful work to do on higher planes and cannot come again so soon. The T.S. must safely be ushered into the new century. YOU HAVE FOR SOME TIME BEEN UNDER DELUDING INFLUENCES. SHUN PRIDE, VANITY AND LOVE OF POWER. BE NOT GUIDED BY EMOTION BUT LEARN TO STAND ALONE. BE ACCURATE AND CRITICAL RATHER THAN CREDULOUS. THE MISTAKE OF THE PAST IN THE OLD RELIGIONS MUST NOT BE GLOSSED OVER WITH IMAGINARY EXPLANATIONS. THE E.S.T. MUST BE REFORMED SO AS TO BE AS UNSECTARIAN AND CREEDLESS AS THE T.S. THE RULES MUST BE FEW AND SIMPLE AND ACCEPTABLE TO ALL. No one has the right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience. Ask him not what he believes. ALL WHO ARE SINCERE AND PURE MINDED MUST HAVE ADMITTANCE. The crest wave of intellectual advancement must be taken hold of and guided into spirituality. It cannot be forced into beliefs and emotional worship. The essence of the higher thoughts of the members in their collectivity must guide all action in the T.S. and E.S. We never try to subject to ourselves the will of another. At favourable times we let loose elevating influences which strike various persons in various ways. It is the collective aspect of many such thoughts that can give the correct note of action. We show no favours. The best corrective of error is an honest and open-minded examination of all facts subjective and objective. MISLEADING SECRECY HAS GIVEN THE DEATH BLOW TO NUMEROUS ORGANIZATIONS. The cant about "Masters" must be silently but firmly put down. Let the devotion and service be to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part. Namelessly and silently we work and the continual references to ourselves and the repetition of our names raises up a confused aura that hinders our work. YOU WILL HAVE TO LEAVE A GOOD DEAL OF YOUR EMOTIONS AND CREDULITY BEFORE YOU BECOME A SAFE GUIDE AMONG THE INFLUENCES THAT WILL COMMENCE TO WORK IN THE NEW CYCLE. The T.S. was meant to be the corner- stone of the future religions of humanity. To accomplish this object those who lead must leave aside their weak predilections for the forms and ceremonies of any particular creed and show themselves to be true Theosophists both in inner thoughts and outward observance. The greatest of your trials is yet to come. We watch over you but you must put forth all your strength. K.H. ------------------------------------------- PS: In 1900 a B. W. Mantri of India, wrote a letter to Annie Besant, then in England, dated August 22. When A.B. opened it she found on its back some lines in the well-known blue pencilling of the MASTER K. H. In the volume published in 1919 by the Theosophical Publishing House of Adyar this letter and the blue penciled lines are reproduced and are included in all subsequent reprintings. (Letter 46, p.99. Letters from the Masters of Wisdom, first series, 4th, 5th, 6th edition.) In the 1948 printing Mr. C. Jinarajadasa adds some historical comments and includes also some letters newly found and never before printed from K.H. to Laura Holloway. H.P.B., and Olcott. The penciled lines from K.H. To Mrs. Besant in the 1900 letter, however, were never published in completeness, as ellipses dots indicate, the editors omitting certain lines they considered too private for public reading. The following now is the complete Letter, earlier omissions being indicated in bold letters. The earnest student will study these omissions which in context reveal the Master's fuller and clear advise. The time indeed may be propitious for their disclosure. The first sentence evidently has reference to Mr. B. K. Mantri. --Ed. [Excerpted from The Eclectic Theosophist, No. 101, September/October 1987] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 09:56:33 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Candles in the Sun Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970113155633.006ef75c@mail.eden.com> On a request from a subscriber, I just posted the famous 1900 letter from Master K.H. I just happpened to find a copy of the book Candles in the Sun and in it there was a statement by the author which may interest many. BTW, Emily Lutyens, the author was a very active member of TS and was also close to AB and JK. ===================================== ".. but I have been realizing more and more strongly during the past few months that the T.S. is drifting further and further from its original purpose, that it has ceased to be a body of seekers after Truth and is becoming more and more a flock of credulous sheep, following the orders of those who have constituted themselves high Initiates, supposedly in touch with the great Hierarchy from whom they derive their authority. I see men and women laying aside their common sense and allowing credulity to take its place. I see conceptions, which even though mistaken, held at least some germ of beauty and nobility, becoming cheap and degraded." "For many months I have hoped that there were a sufficient number of members of the TS alive to the cancer which is eating its soul away to gather together and cut it out, but that hope is now dead. The disease is spreading and I fear the patient is near at death. But I for one will no longer be a part to a policy which plays upon the credulity, the vanity and ignorance of men and women. Whether it is carried on in good faith by those themselves deceived, or whether there is a deliberate attempt to defraud matters little. The moment has come for plain speaking and I make no apologies if I have said some harsh things. I know that what I say is true and truth needs no apology." ======================================= MKR: I would like to add a little known fact. Some time after Krishnaji made his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement and disbanded the Order of the Star, Annie Besant suspended all E.S. activities for some time. At that time, on a suggestion made by someone, AB brought before the General Council a proposal to replace the Three Objects of TS by a single simple Object -- That of Seeking Truth (I am quoting from memory). In spite of her stature and influence, the General Council rejected her proposal. Think of what would have happened if her proposal was accepted. It would have changed the face of TS for ever for good, IMHO. In the above context, I would also direct the attention to the "thesis" about the inner aims of TS which was described in an unsigned article in the Theosophical Messenger which is sent to TSA Members at Large. Readers can think and decide for themselves. These are MHO and your mileage and direction may vary. M K Ramadoss Member TSA From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:13:15 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Candles in the Sun Message-ID: <32e25e8b.6199824@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 13 Jan 97, M K Ramadoss wrote: >On a request from a subscriber, I just posted the famous 1900 letter from >Master K.H. I just happpened to find a copy of the book Candles in the Sun >and in it there was a statement by the author which may interest many. >BTW, Emily Lutyens, the author was a very active member of TS and was >also close to AB and JK. > >===================================== >".. but I have been realizing more and more strongly during the past few >months that the T.S. is drifting further and further from its original >purpose, I am curious as to when Emily wrote this. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:31:31 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: 1900 Letter from Master K.H. Message-ID: <32e360db.6791366@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 13 Jan 97, M K Ramadoss wrote: >In response to a request, I am re-posting the famous 1900 Letter from >Master K.H. It appears that as far as TS is concerned, it is more relevant >today as it was relevant in 1900. I suggest that Theosophy dogmatically stands against dogmatism. That this is not a contradiction, but a paradox, is indicated by how analogous it is to many other concepts. If there is no form that does not constantly change, then change is the only constant. If fallible human beings never know, beyond all doubt, how conclusions based on what they know will be affected by what they don't know, they can be certain that they cannot be certain of anything. The best way to prevent war is to prepare for it. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." By being so cowardly towards the possibility of being cowardly, one will be courageous. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:22:46 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 817 Message-ID: <970113135406_1243494650@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-11 15:32:11 EST, you write: MKR writes: "As far as the cancellation of charters in Canada and Denmark etc. no one who has first hand access to the information has come forth and explained why the charter was cancelled. Cancellation of a National Section Charter is not a simple or easy decision at the highest level, especially at a time the membership world wide is perhaps at its lowest and perhaps shrinking. So there should be some valid and strong reasons. The questions is what is preventing anyone who knows full facts to come out with details." I have been a longtime subscriber to THE CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST. The July/August, 1992 issue (Volume 73, Number 3) gives a partial explanation. It seems that the "parent society", i.e., Adyar, was left out of the By-Laws for the Canadian Section which were amended in September, 1991. Radha Burnier et al were miffed and consequently sacked the entire Section. There was also a problem with the ES which some members regarded as an elitist group within the Section. Canadian ESers apparently disapproved some of the material being presented in the Lodges. (Alice Bailey teachings perhaps since some of AAB's material has been referred to or discussed in various issues of The Can. Theos. magazine). As human beings we attain the age of reason at 7 or 8 and devolop the powers of discursive reasoning as we move into adulthood (manas=mind=the cognitive faculty..."manas" is incorporated into the word "man" itself). Hence, as rational human beings we have the option of accepting or rejecting a particular set of teachings based on their merits or lack of them. Yet, curiously, Adyar wants to keep us all in catechism class. On the other hand, BEACON Magazine talks unabashedly about the Masters, Shamballa and the Devas which are subjects that are avoided for the most part in Wheaton's financial lemon, QUEST magazine. After all, we don't want to scare off the academicians, do we? Goodness, those Ph.D's the TS is constantly courting might think we're a bunch of New Age loonies! LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 07:14:51 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701140032.TAA12432@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Ann, > I don't know where you could find it now, but Candles in the Sun used to be > in the Olcott Library but was probably purged for telling the truth. It has > been gone for some years now. And considering the condition it was in and > the subject matter, I doubt anyone stole it, which is, of course, what we > would be told. > I was there on a Sunday and the library was closed, so I could not check with someone actually IN the library. The person manning Quest Books looked through some kind of listing and told me it wasn't in the library. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 07:17:04 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: I Me Mine Message-ID: <199701140032.TAA12640@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > RIhle@aol.com writes: > ><< >In message <9701110944.AA05931@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins > > > writes > > >>h39 > > >> > > >z32 >> > > > >c42 > >w24 > >h36 > > > > hehehe. that was crude...:) > Is this the size of your head, neck and shoulders? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:31:27 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199701140032.TAA12710@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Martin Giuffrida > > Titus Roth wrote: > > >It still seems like a big leap to say animals evolve. > > The general *Theosophical* view I once heard and found acceptable is that > animals evolve from the animal kingdom into the human kingdom, as human > evolve into the spiritual kingdom. There are angelic associations with > animals, and the totality will not be simple. But from one perspective, > animals set out upon group souls. When most animals die, their essence is > re-absorbed into a group soul, but not as an individuality. > > Certain animals, probably along seven main streams, associate closely with > human beings. These are the domesticated dog, cat, horse, elephant, etc. > Some animals are recognized for their uncanny manifestation of a remarkable > 'personality'. At a certain point an animal, through tutilage and influence > of human beings is brought to the portal of 'individuation' in which the > life passes into the beginning stage of a human soul. > > Just a small window on one person's gleanings. > It's the same window I'm looking out of. And well said! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:27:08 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Godel's Theorm Message-ID: <32DAD2DC.6D5F@worldnet.att.net> Tom Robertson: "I'd like to see a "formal proof" that 2+2 might not be 4, also." Are you familar with Godel's Theorm? He provided a mathematical proof that there is no formal mathematical system of axioms and rules that can prove every one of its own statements. In other words, all mathematical systems depend on several assmptions, and there are always some statements that cannot be proved within that system. Thus all mathematics are inherently limited. This struck a major blow to all those mathematicians trying to 'prove' universal laws -- like God, they may or may not exist, but cannot be proved and must be taken on faith. Jerry S Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:52:50 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Compassion Message-ID: <32DAD8E2.5AC3@worldnet.att.net> Tom: " Women _are_ more compassionate and cooperative than men." So who is stopping you from being more compassionate? What does this one-sided statement say about Jesus and Buddha? Anyway, Tom, your sexist remark does not jive with my experience. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 17:22:14 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 825 Message-ID: <32DADFC6.1337@TIW.COM> theos-l@vnet.net wrote: > > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:29:25 > From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science > Message-ID: > > Bart, > > I have to disagree with you on your remarks made about philosopy and science. > Philosophy is the study of ideas which characterise the whole, both the > physical and non-physical realms. Science is the proof of the ideas > presented. Granted,exoteric science is the study of the physical universe, > but ofcourse one also has the esoteric sciences which study the subjective. > To try to suggest that the two disciplines are the same, ie. simply > "Science" is I believe not the case, though they can complement each other! > Then, there is the philosopy of science which is the study of how to go > about proving the philosophical ideas through scientific method. I suppose > this splits the esotericist from the exoteric scientists because they study > the interplay of the objective and subjective from two different stand > points. > Speaking about mathematics, I would say that mathematics is a subset of > scientific method. One can use the same symbols to mean something completely > different as long as you tell others what the symbols in your system > actually mean. Then you don't lose communication. I think you could suggest > that languages such as English are mathematical in nature, one "adds" up > letters to form a word which has definite meaning to the native linguist, but > to an Englishman who hasn't studied French the "mathematics" are going to be > incomprehensible. > > Love and Light > Ben > > ------------------------------ > It is important to make a distinction between "pure mathematics" and "applied mathematics", for they are entirely different disciplines. Pure mathematics exists for its own sake, and it often treats a different subject matter, and in a different way, from applied mathematics. The disciplines are so distinct that historically there has even sometimes appeared to be some hostility between practitioners of the distinct fields. Once a conference featured parallel sessions on pure and applied mathematics, and it was asked how one could ensure harmony, given the apparant historic hostility of the disciplines. The reply was: "Applied mathematics has never been hostile to pure mathematics; applied mathematics can never be hostile to pure mathematics; for the two have nothing in common." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:33:53 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32DAE281.2BF4@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Mathematics is an entirely man-made, artificial construct. It is as > >eternal as a circle, since it is entirely made up of circular reasoning. > > Mathematics is a discovery of objectively-existing laws. No one can decide > what these laws are. That is PRECISELY what happens. Someone decides on what the laws are, and people either generally agree or disagree. If they agree, it becomes part of mathematics. If they do not, then it becomes a footnote. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 01:20:59 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Trust but Verify Message-ID: In message <2.2.32.19970113011245.006df72c@mail.eden.com>, M K Ramadoss writes >Thanks for everyone who has supported the above motto. > >May be it is time to add to "There is No Religion Higher Than Truth", the >motto, "Trust but Verify". Is not the latter by coincidence from Russia, the >mother country of HPB. I am sure if she is reading this from whereever she >is, she will be filled with great joy that we are paying attention to a >Russian Proverb. > .. and possibly thinking, "It's about time they got round to this!" Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:39:38 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <32DAE3DA.79E5@sprynet.com> Ann E. Bermingham wrote: > > ---------- > > From: Bart Lidofsky > > > > Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > > So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! > > > Long live theosophy!" > > > > One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will > > be dead. > > > And so will you! Well, once a palmist looked at my hand, and was about to read my lifeline, when she stared in disbelief, and gave me a refund, refusing to say anything, but I caught her muttering something about "Martians"... Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 01:29:35 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Richard's measurements Message-ID: <6OK4QfA$Fu2yEwHP@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199701130449.VAA05534@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >How about, in the spirit of equality, you slap your body measurements on theos? > How about 38 38 38 4 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, 13 Jan 1997 20:41:40 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <32DAE454.1D8C@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > In message <32D95A28.6EA4@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky > writes > >Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > >> So be it. Maybe the cry of the 21st century will be "The TS is dead! > >> Long live theosophy!" > > > > One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will > >be dead. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > Not all of it. What is the point you ae trying to make, if any? A play on the "God is dead" graffitti of the early 70's. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 21:09:13 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Philosophy of Science Message-ID: <32DAEAC9.5A23@sprynet.com> be94bmp wrote: > I have to disagree with you on your remarks made about philosopy and science. > Philosophy is the study of ideas which characterise the whole, both the > physical and non-physical realms. I tend to agree with the Mahatmas, that there IS no non-physical realm. > Science is the proof of the ideas > presented. Granted,exoteric science is the study of the physical universe, > but ofcourse one also has the esoteric sciences which study the subjective. What, in your opinion, is the difference between the sujbjective and the objective universe. > To try to suggest that the two disciplines are the same, ie. simply > "Science" is I believe not the case, though they can complement each other! I believe that is what I was saying. > Then, there is the philosopy of science which is the study of how to go > about proving the philosophical ideas through scientific method. I suppose > this splits the esotericist from the exoteric scientists because they study > the interplay of the objective and subjective from two different stand > points. Once again, what is the difference between the objective and the subjective? > Speaking about mathematics, I would say that mathematics is a subset of > scientific method. One can use the same symbols to mean something completely > different as long as you tell others what the symbols in your system > actually mean. Then you don't lose communication. I think you could suggest > that languages such as English are mathematical in nature, one "adds" up > letters to form a word which has definite meaning to the native linguist, but > to an Englishman who hasn't studied French the "mathematics" are going to be > incomprehensible. Not quite, but close enough for horseshoes and H-bombs. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:26:18 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 817 Message-ID: <199701140230.VAA29306@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Lmhem111@aol.com > > . . . BEACON Magazine talks unabashedly about the Masters, Shamballa and the Devas > which are subjects that are avoided for the most part in Wheaton's financial > lemon, QUEST magazine. After all, we don't want to scare off the > academicians, do we? Goodness, those Ph.D's the TS is constantly courting > might think we're a bunch of New Age loonies! > BEACON is pretty heavy stuff. If one wasn't a Baileyite or something in that neighborhood, one's reaction might be one of confusion as to terminology and philosophy. My impression of QUEST is that it not only leans toward the academic intellectuals, but strictly caters to them. Unfortunately, there aren't that many academic intellectuals buying magazines en masse. They are probably purchasing university published periodicals that cater even more to their specialty. Most of down-trodden humanity is reading Cosmopolitan, Globe, National Enquirer, People, Reader's Digest, etc. Some are reading Yoga Journal, New Age Journal, Magical Blend, Gnosis and Venture Inward. The rest are illiterate and possibly watching sitcoms on television. It's kind of hard to keep a magazine financially afloat when it is pitching to such a narrow audience. I wonder if most university magazines are subsidized by the institution that prints them? Perhaps that is the way TS will have to keep QUEST alive, if they want to keep the writing at the current PhD level. Also, a lot of the above mentioned magazines rely heavily on advertising. Lots of advertising. I used to belong to a group in which the leader used to court people with letters after their names. MBA,MD,RN,BS,etc. Members used to snicker behind the leader's back, but also with a twinge of sarcasm. The leader made no effort not to show his preference for the lettered people, kissing their educated butts, while the degree-less members plodded on, doing most of the organization's work. Over the years that I was there, the letter people abandoned the group for more fertile fields and who who was left to carry on? The regular guys and gals. I think there's a lesson there someplace. Look at the heart, not at the letters after the name. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:29:14 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Candles in the Sun Message-ID: <199701140230.VAA29354@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Candles in the Sun > Date: Monday, January 13, 1997 9:57 AM > > On a request from a subscriber, I just posted the famous 1900 letter from > Master K.H. I just happpened to find a copy of the book Candles in the Sun > and in it there was a statement by the author which may interest many. BTW, > Emily Lutyens, the author was a very active member of TS and was also close > to AB and JK. > > ===================================== > ".. but I have been realizing more and more strongly during the past few > months that the T.S. is drifting further and further from its original > purpose, that it has ceased to be a body of seekers after Truth and is > becoming more and more a flock of credulous sheep, following the orders of > those who have constituted themselves high Initiates, supposedly in touch > with the great Hierarchy from whom they derive their authority. I see men > and women laying aside their common sense and allowing credulity to take its > place. I see conceptions, which even though mistaken, held at least some > germ of beauty and nobility, becoming cheap and degraded." > > "For many months I have hoped that there were a sufficient number of members > of the TS alive to the cancer which is eating its soul away to gather > together and cut it out, but that hope is now dead. The disease is spreading > and I fear the patient is near at death. But I for one will no longer be a > part to a policy which plays upon the credulity, the vanity and ignorance of > men and women. Whether it is carried on in good faith by those themselves > deceived, or whether there is a deliberate attempt to defraud matters > little. The moment has come for plain speaking and I make no apologies if I > have said some harsh things. I know that what I say is true and truth needs > no apology." > > ======================================= It has been my observation that many people want to live for something higher than themselves and are willing to serve that which is higher. They sometimes think they can do that more effectively through a group or organization, believing that large numbers of people cooperating will have the most impact. Unfortunately, this positive human impulse is exploited by the leaders of many groups and organizations. Also, internal politics can completely destroy the ability of an organization to function and do the work for which it was originally created for. The mad drive for power or wish to impose one's thinking on the group leads to dictatorships and for those that stay, surrender of their will. While the rest scatter to other groups, or discouraged, go it alone. My observations aren't from watching TS, as I am a relative newcomer here, although I can catch instances of these self-destructive patterns in reading its histories. I've been in other groups that had much potential to do good work, but had personality conflicts and flaws that gave the people involved enough ammunition to not only shoot themselves in the foot, but everyone else's. I am beginning to think that a truly functioning group, whether it be non-profit or profit oriented, is a rare thing. Perhaps, some lifetime down the line, we'll get it right. Remember Star Trek/The Next Generation? Maybe by then. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:32:27 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701140233.VAA01552@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Well, once a palmist looked at my hand, and was about to read my > lifeline, when she stared in disbelief, and gave me a refund, refusing > to say anything, but I caught her muttering something about > "Martians"... > Are you from Mars, Bart? How unique! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:35:03 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will > > >be dead. > > > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > Not all of it. What is the point you ae trying to make, if any? > > A play on the "God is dead" graffitti of the early 70's. > > Bart Lidofsky > The 1870's? That quote comes originally from Nietzsche's _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ : "When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that *God is dead*!" (-:), -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:43:12 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: A bit of humor ... Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ***A Collection of Various Pagan Lightbulb Jokes*** * How many Gardernians does it take to change a light bulb? 1) Sorry, that's a Third Degree secret. 2) (In a low ominous tone) "Why do you want to know... initiate?" * How many Brit Trad Wiccans does it take to change a light bulb? >13. One to change the bulb, and 12 to mourn the passing of the old bulb. * How many Thelemites does it take to change a light bulb? 1) 93. 2) None - Thelemites embrace the dark as well as the light. 3) None - real Thelemites aren't afraid of the dark. stare at them as you wait for them to grasp the obvious) * How many Frost "School of Wicca" Witches does it take to change a light bulb? >"Just you! That's right, YOU! And for only $195 we'll send you our complete "Witches Magic Power of Light Bulb Changing Course" with real knowledge that you can apply this to ANY light bulb ANYwhere! Listen to the testimony of a young couple from Wisconsin who..." * How many members of IOT does it take to screw in a lighbulb? >Sorry, that ritual is copyrighted. * How many Proteans does it take to change a light bulb? >I can't tell you--we never change a light bulb the same way twice! :} * How many ADF druids does it take to change a light bulb? >Six. One to change the bulb, one to write a song about how much better the old bulb was, and four to write conflicting parodies of the second Druid's song. * How many Shamans does it take to change a light bulb? >None. They just change shape into a cat or bat, and can see in the dark. * How many tantrics does it take to change a light bulb? >2, as long as the lamp is by the bed... * How many Ceremonial Magicians does it take to change a light bulb? 1) One. They hold it up, and the world revolves around them. (I know one of these; it's true!) 2) Only one, but he has to do it on the 3rd friday of a month when the Moon is in Taurus and it's the fifth planetary hour... and it's *not* funny * How many Druid's does it take to change a lightbulb? >501. One to change the bulb and 500 to align the new stone. * How many Family traditionalists does it take to change a light bulb? >Candle light was good enough for our ancestors, it's good enough for us! * How many Astrologers does it take to change a light bulb? >"Don't ask me now, Mercury's retrograde!" * How many Pagans does it take to change a lightbulb? >Six. One to change it, and five to sit around complaining that lightbulbs never burned out before those Christians came along. * How many Witches does it take to change a light bulb? >Into what? * How many Aries does it take to change a light bulb? >Only one, but it takes a lot of light bulbs. * How many Tauruses does it take to change a light bulb? >What, me move? * How many Geminis does it take to change a light bulb? >II * How many Cancers does it take to change a light bulb? >Only one, but he has to bring his mother. * How many Leos does it take to change a light bulb? >A dozen. One to change the bulb, and eleven to applaud. * How many Virgos does it take to change a light bulb? >Five. One to clean out the socket, one to dust the bulb, one to install, and two engineers to check the work. * How many Libras does it take to change a light bulb? >Libras can't decide if the bulb needs to be changed. * How many Scorpios does it take to change a light bulb? >None. They LIKE the dark. * How many Sagittarians does it take to change a light bulb? >One to install the bulb, and a Virgo to pick up the pieces. * How many Capricorns does it take to change a light bulb? >The light's fine as it is. * How many Aquarians does it take to change a light bulb? >Have you asked the bulb if it WANTS to be changed? * How many Pisceans does it take to change a light bulb? >What light bulb? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 21:58:51 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <32DAF66B.7148@sprynet.com> JRC wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > One can be reasonably certain that, in the 21st Century, Alan Bain will > > > >be dead. > > > > > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > > > Not all of it. What is the point you ae trying to make, if any? > > > > A play on the "God is dead" graffitti of the early 70's. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > The 1870's? That quote comes originally from Nietzsche's _Thus Spake > Zarathustra_ : "When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his > heart: "Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet > heard of it, that *God is dead*!" And the reply: "Nietzshe is dead" - God From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 22:03:29 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: A bit of humor ... Message-ID: <32DAF781.5B99@sprynet.com> JRC wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > ***A Collection of Various Pagan Lightbulb Jokes*** Q: How many Theosophists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: None. By the time they finish discussing whether the lightbulb needs changing, the proper method in which to change the lightbulb, how it might have been done historically, and how everybody else changes lightbulbs, it's already daylight. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 23:58:29 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Richard's measurements Message-ID: <970113163818_1343575723@emout19.mail.aol.com> Kym writes--> << Your appreciation of women for their mind is why I just can't help but adore you. Those types of men are a rarity. How about, in the spirit of equality, you slap your body measurements on theos? Kym >> Richard Ihle writes--> Sorry, but you could probably check to see if Bee still has them. Godspeed, R. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:06:49 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 820 Message-ID: <970113174250_373975408@emout13.mail.aol.com> JRC, you make a fine defense for Bing. I agree with the merits of your argument that the TSA did him a terrible injustice for which someday it will reap the Karmic consequences. HQ claimed he was not qualified for the office of president yet he was the National President of the Phillipine Section at one time. I hope an object history of the TS will one day be written which will include that whole unsavory episode about Bing. You certainly won't find it in 100 YEARS OF THEOSOPHY by Joy Mills. Someone on the Board told me that there was something in Bing's personal background which the BOD couldn't reveal. I don't know what that means? A scandal of some sort? What? LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:15:30 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <970113204407_845229854@emout05.mail.aol.com> Ann, I'm not surprised. Some years ago, long before Elizabeth came so we can't blame her, there was a major purgation of books in the Olcott Library to make sure everything there fit the idea of theosophical purity. Of course no one said it like that, but that's basically what happened, and, as Candles in the Sun and Is This Theosophy committed the cardinal sin of actually telling the truth about some of the nutcases in the TS during the Besant-Leadbeater period, they sort of disappeared-- I think into the fireplace one winter night. Chuck the Heretic "There is no religion higher than truth though what truth has to do with the Theosophical Society is beyond me." Groucho Marx "Beep Beep." Harpo Marx From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:37:16 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Compassion Message-ID: <970113204628_1209997878@emout10.mail.aol.com> Jerry, Compassion? In the TS??????? Don't be ridiculous! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 01:54:07 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <970113204954_1418839344@emout17.mail.aol.com> Bart, I know the feeling. I once had a palmist shout "Feets don't fail me now!" and jump out a window. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:44:32 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Compassion Message-ID: <32df37c2.61668526@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 14 Jan 97, Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom: >" Women _are_ more compassionate and cooperative than men." > >So who is stopping you from being more compassionate? I fail to see the relevance of this to what I said. >What does this one-sided statement say about Jesus and Buddha? How is my statement one-sided? >Anyway, Tom, your sexist remark does not jive with my experience. I don't see how our impressions being different makes my statement sexist and yours not. What is your definition of sexism? Is it any belief that women and men are not identical in every way? If I said that men are physically stronger than women, would you also consider that to be a sexist remark? What if I said that men commit more violent crimes than women do? Is it any generalization made about men and women that you disagree with? Or is it any generalization made about men and women, regardless of whether or not you agree with it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:15:29 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: conservatism Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970115032745.1e8751b6@iprolink.co.nz> Replying to Tom [Eldon] >>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. [Tom] >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. If we include other planes of existence in with the physical, the costs of limited perspective, human concern and imagination, can be enormous, whatever point of the political spectrum a government is on. The problem is that governments seem to focus on economic cost first, and other kinds a rather poor second. And they don't even seem to have a very far-ranging view of financial cost. As for domination - does it have more place in private life than in government? Pyramidal heirarchies and star-shaped networks are giving way to flatter structures and multi-connected networks in business. They seem to be slower to catch on in government. But then, we need to remember how much some people like power for their own limited perspectives. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:15:33 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Silence of the Kyms Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970115032749.1e87d820@iprolink.co.nz> To Richard Ihle >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. This is not exactly your point, but initiative and cooperation are a winning partnership, whatever the sex of the people involved. One need not be at the expense of the other. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:16:03 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970115032819.1e872974@iprolink.co.nz> Tom, [Bart] >take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking about >temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. [Tom] That a temperature of -500 might be equivalent to a temperature of -1000 does not make -500 equivalent to -1000. Just to add to the picture, the physical absolute zero is -459.7 degrees Farhenheit. I would ask Bart; what mathematical operation was used to obtain the -500 and -1000 and to say they are the same temperature? Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:16:06 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Multiple recipients of list Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970115032822.1c5fe864@iprolink.co.nz> Eldon, If I may comment on the exchange between you and JRC - [JRC] >>Actual growth and evolution is bound to be >>uncomfortable and extremely volatile - but ultimately whether the > .... >You tend to view the process from a more western standpoint and see >conflict as an essential ingredient. I'd see is as a rare tonic, a >medicine, not as a daily ingredient of life. I don't think a sense of conflict is or should be that rare. If you accept the idea of there being two main countercurrents, with many others possible, in our basic makeup (and I find it true in my experience, and commented-on in mystical literature), the often-wished-for "peace" will not be all that common until we get a whole further along the road. A lot of what I've gathered of JRC's opinions on conflict is not to be afraid of it, and to take a constructive view where one keeps in mind the deeper, positive processes that are going on at the same time. [JRC] >>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*). > >I'd object to the term "almost *ruthless*" though. I'd call it >astonishing, or surprising, or totally unexpected -- somewhat zen-like, >rather than something acting with a karate-like quality that simply hits >you and knocks you down. For me, the term "almost ruthless" is rather appropriate, because I take it to mean they are uncompromising, relentless and utterly whole-hearted in their compassion - not afraid to see short-term pain for a longer-term, vastly more positive result, within that envelope of compassion; feeling the pain acutely themselves in the process. >>I have no illusions, nor desire, >>to be a "clever guru" ... in fact I don't believe in gurus at all > >But you give this impression when you tell Tom that you respond to him >in the same manner and measure as he acts. I don't think that's the only interpretion. Far from it. Whatever JRC's motives, I have found the exchange extremely interesting, both for its content and for the techniques. Whether I would - or could - do the same, is another matter. >> ...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?). > >Perhaps a different "teacher" tone than you like to use. Yours has >more of the sound of a "karate instructor", mine may have more of a >"traditional guru" sound to it. I think it's JRC who sounds more like the guru proper, without wanting to put you down. I'm glad you mentioned surprise somewhere else in your post, Eldon. It's often quite a pointer. >It's possible to deflate certain ideas, or defuse an explosive discussion, >without getting into a personal fight. Yes, but is it really just a personal fight? I sense more to it than this. >> I'd say it's possible to disarm someone that >>is combative without having to take up arms. Yes, but several of us have tried this already. Tom puts out a lot of energy, IMO, so it's not inappropriate to reply with a lot of energy. I feel JRC has spoken, in a way, for many on the list. And, curiously, that includes Tom. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:35:10 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Books Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970114113510.006e7a84@mail.eden.com> >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:15:30 -0500 (EST) >From: Drpsionic@aol.com >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Re: Private matters? >Message-ID: <970113204407_845229854@emout05.mail.aol.com> > >Ann, >I'm not surprised. Some years ago, long before Elizabeth came so we can't >blame her, there was a major purgation of books in the Olcott Library to make >sure everything there fit the idea of theosophical purity. Of course no one >said it like that, but that's basically what happened, and, as Candles in the >Sun and Is This Theosophy committed the cardinal sin of actually telling the >truth about some of the nutcases in the TS during the Besant-Leadbeater >period, they sort of disappeared-- I think into the fireplace one winter >night. > >Chuck the Heretic > >"There is no religion higher than truth though what truth has to do with the >Theosophical Society is beyond me." Groucho Marx > >"Beep Beep." Harpo Marx > All books soon will be available on electronic form and so everyone can access everything printed. Also the copyright would have perhaps expired. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:46:15 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Bing Escudero Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970114114615.006dd308@mail.eden.com> > >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:06:49 -0500 (EST) >From: Lmhem111@aol.com >To: theos-l@vnet.net >Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 820 >Message-ID: <970113174250_373975408@emout13.mail.aol.com> > >JRC, you make a fine defense for Bing. I agree with the merits of your >argument that the TSA did him a terrible injustice for which someday it will >reap the Karmic consequences. HQ claimed he was not qualified for the office >of president yet he was the National President of the Phillipine Section at >one time. I hope an object history of the TS will one day be written which >will include that whole unsavory episode about Bing. You certainly won't find >it in 100 YEARS OF THEOSOPHY by Joy Mills. Someone on the Board told me that >there was something in Bing's personal background which the BOD couldn't >reveal. I don't know what that means? A scandal of some sort? What? > >LunarPitri > Very interesting. This is the first time I hear about this angle of the story. The probability is that if this is really true, then the likely hood of this whatever is having been leaked out is very high. It would be very interesting to hear if there is someone else who may have heard of any similar statement. The enormous extent to which they went to change the bylaws etc seem to indicate that the real reason was not his prior background. I Trust it is true. But would like to verify. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:15:17 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) Subject: Re: Objective/Subjective? Message-ID: Bart, >Once again, what is the difference between the objective and the subjective? In my view, the objective is illusion,based upon the creation of the idea by the soul to enter the physical plane to gain experience of "death". The idea sent forth an impulse to create a myriad of forms in order to satisfy the soul that he had experienced the form aspect of Life. The subjective can either be real or illusion. It would be illusion if the subjective object was formed from the divine impulse which generates "form", but it would be real if the object was not of substance at all, wouldn't it? So, the "objective" and "subjective" universes are illusions because they are based on an idea, but that which "generated" the idea is not.Perhaps, the spirit/matter aspect of all forms is also an illusion, but that which ties the threads together, so to speak, is real. Love and Light Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 07:16:11 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: A bit of humor ... Message-ID: <199701141533.KAA20366@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: JRC > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > ***A Collection of Various Pagan Lightbulb Jokes*** > > * How many Astrologers does it take to change a light bulb? > >"Don't ask me now, Mercury's retrograde!" More like, "Uranus' retrograde!" > > * How many Geminis does it take to change a light bulb? > >II I'd say a Gemini would call up all his friends, talk for an hour to each one and invite each to a bulb-changing party. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:34:05 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Question for Murray Message-ID: <32eba401.89378793@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 14 Jan 97, Murray Stentiford wrote: >Whatever JRC's motives, I have found the exchange extremely interesting, >both for its content and for the techniques. This surprises me. I fail to see anywhere near as much good there is in such an "exchange" as there is harm. Never in a million years will the hypocritical preacher of open-mindedness ever consider the possibility that, in ways in which he and I disagree, he might be wrong. And from a selfish perspective, even though I considered that what he said might be true, I had to wade through so much bullshit in the form of invective and falsehood that I fail to see anything close to a net gain for me. Once he defended his statement about the connection between the TS's lawsuit with the Boston Lodge and the Boston Lodge's studying of Alice Bailey in the lamest way possible, instead of admitting he had lied through his teeth in implying that he had a reason to claim such a connection, it was the last straw and I decided not to read his posts any more. If you see good to all of this, maybe you could more specifically explain it, because I have missed it, so far. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:44:01 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) Subject: Godel's Theorem Message-ID: Jerry, Godel's Theorem sounds intriguing, where would I find a copy of it? Namaste' Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:04:12 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Objective/Subjective? Message-ID: <32eeb7f2.94483852@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 14 Jan 97, be94bmp wrote: >Bart: >>Once again, what is the difference between the objective and the >>subjective? >In my view, the objective is illusion,based upon the creation of the idea by >the soul to enter the physical plane to gain experience of "death". The idea >sent forth an impulse to create a myriad of forms in order to satisfy the >soul that he had experienced the form aspect of Life. The subjective can >either be real or illusion. It would be illusion if the subjective object >was formed from the divine impulse which generates "form", but it would be >real if the object was not of substance at all, wouldn't it? >So, the "objective" and "subjective" universes are illusions because they are >based on an idea, but that which "generated" the idea is not.Perhaps, the >spirit/matter aspect of all forms is also an illusion, but that which ties >the threads together, so to speak, is real. > >Love and Light >Ben > What I find interesting in the relationship between the objective and the subjective is that the impossibility of demonstrating that one can exist without the other is obvious. If there was anything purely objective, no one could know about it, since knowing requires a subject. And neither can a subject be observed without becoming an object. I wonder if self-awareness is the identity of subject and object, or if such identity is impossible and that it is only different aspects of a self which can observe each other. Fact and opinion relate to each other in the same way. They are on the same continuum, and it is only the degree to which a perception is objective or subjective that determines whether it is fact or opinion. There is some uncertainty about the most obvious facts, and there is some truth in the most whimsical opinions. The idea that there is nothing that is not both subjective and objective is consistent with the idea that consciousness is all-pervasive. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 09:42:11 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Candles in the Sun Message-ID: <199701141742.JAA25922@palrel1.hp.com> "Ann E. Bermingham" wrote: > It has been my observation that many people want to live for something > higher than themselves and are willing to serve that which is higher. They > sometimes think they can do that more effectively through a group or > organization, believing that large numbers of people cooperating will have > the most impact. With the exception of *large* numbers, they may be right. "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name ..." Even small numbers tend to amplify the hidden samskaras of members, though. If I were to put my cynical hat on, I'd be tempted to paraphrase, "Where 2 or 3 are gathered together in anything, there will be politics!" > Unfortunately, this positive human impulse is exploited by the leaders of > many groups and organizations. Also, internal politics can completely > destroy the ability of an organization to function and do the work for which > it was originally created for. The mad drive for power or wish to impose > one's thinking on the group leads to dictatorships and for those that stay, > surrender of their will. While the rest scatter to other groups, or > discouraged, go it alone. > My observations aren't from watching TS, as I am a relative newcomer here, > although I can catch instances of these self-destructive patterns in reading > its histories. I've been in other groups that had much potential to do good > work, but had personality conflicts and flaws that gave the people involved > enough ammunition to not only shoot themselves in the foot, but everyone > else's. > I am beginning to think that a truly functioning group, whether it be > non-profit or profit oriented, is a rare thing. Perhaps, some lifetime down > the line, we'll get it right. All too true. I don't know if his works are considered Theosophical heresy, but has anyone read Eugene M. Cosgrove? He was at one time an associate of Alice Bailey, but withdrew from her teachings because he wanted to teach his students more directly of the Christ. "The High Walk of Discipleship", out of print along with his other books, says that the emphasis in the Aquarian age will be group functioning. He says that resonances established between group members increases their individual effects 5-fold. It seems to me to be true - provided that one looks at the inner effects rather than the outer effects. "Unfortunately", group dynamics seem to increase good *and* bad. "Fortunately" this enables us to gauge our weaknesses and see how well our high-sounding words meet reality. I never met Cosgrove and wouldn't call myself an EMC afficionado, but his works add a certain devotional aspect that is badly missing from Theosophical literature and from Alice Bailey. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:48:15 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: Some of the subscribers who have been here for over a year may have read all the traffic on the subject. I am sure it is available in archives for anyone to read. May be, if some one has them in a readily accessible form, reposting them might help new subscribers to come up to speed and make up their own mind. BTW, in all the traffic, the is nothing from any responsible elected National Official of TSA, just for the information of the newbees. Disclaimer: Your mileage and direction may vary M K Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:31:34 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Private Matters? Message-ID: <199701141831.KAA02443@proxy1.ba.best.com> Didn't we establish that Alan was God? TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:30:38 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Private Matters? Message-ID: <199701141830.KAA00800@proxy1.ba.best.com> Gag!!! And hear the same arguments? I'd rather be dead! TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:30:49 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: <199701141830.KAA01203@proxy1.ba.best.com> Triaist Man: >Here's mine. >chest 40 >waist 30 >Underwaist 30-34 mwahaha figure that one out. (I'm a sicko) Oh, we've been mistaken. Alan did not turn you into a carrot, he turned you into a ginseng root! BTW, my math is bad, how big does that make you? TTT =o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:49:31 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <970114134929_1593741931@emout20.mail.aol.com> But we get to reincarnate. god is still dead and likely to stay that way, the ravings of the christians notwithstanding. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:57:55 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Bing Escudero Message-ID: <970114135755_1444425500@emout05.mail.aol.com> This business about some hidden scandal is probably utter nonsense. But that is the problem if you try to be respectable. The easiest way to attack you is to claim some hidden skeleton bouncing in your closet but never saying what it is. Now, if Bing had lived an openly scandalous life, he wouldn't have this problem. Virtue, in the end, carries its own punishment. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:21:21 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Skill vs. Luck Message-ID: <32dff643.110436489@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> The extent to which skill and luck determine results could be graphed. The horizontal axis would be time, and the vertical axis would be the extent to which luck determines success. The graph would be a curve entirely in the upper right quadrant which asymptotically approaches the vertical axis going up, curves down and to the right, and asymptotically approaches the horizontal axis going to the right. It is always a mixture of the two, and the more time that is involved, the less luck plays a part. I base my idea of karma on this. In the short run, there are all kinds of fluctuations from justice, but in the long run, people tend to get what they deserve. In the short run, results are predominantly determined by circumstances. In the long run, they are determined primarily by character. I was a professional gambler for many years. One of the most crucial qualities for success in such a venture is the ability to look past short-term results and to keep one's eye on the underlying probabilities, confident that long-term results will approach those probabilities. Individuals are responsible for their results only to the extent that they are determined by skill. No one is responsible for luck. A few years ago, 4 fire fighters died in an arson fire in Seattle. The local prosecutor wanted to charge the arsonist with murder. But, since most fires do not directly lead to any deaths, it was almost entirely luck that these deaths accidentally occurred. Theoretically, every arsonist should be charged for the probability that the fires they started would result in deaths, based on an average of all such fires. If 6 people point loaded guns at 6 different people, if one gun misfires, and if the other 5 people who are shot die, each of the 6 intended shooters are 5/6 responsible for a death. Assuming failed attempts at murder are due to luck rather than to incompetence, I fail to see why attempted murder should be considered to be any less of a crime than murder. The intent and the probability of death are the same. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:21:27 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: The Virtue of Prejudice Message-ID: <32deefbc.108765890@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Prejudice and collective karma are directly related. The combination of the average individual of a certain group being perceived to act differently from the average individual of another group and lack of complete information about particular individuals from those groups makes prejudice inevitable. The only way judging individuals on their own merits is better than prejudice is that it is probably more accurate. There is nothing wrong with tentatively making probability estimates of the behavior of individuals based on group behavior. Prejudice only becomes wrong when such estimates take precedence over judging individuals on their own merits. Accusations of prejudice have been abused. Charges of sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, etc. have been carelessly thrown around, without distinguishing between the times when information about an individual could reasonably have been obtained and when it could not have been. Crime statistics make certain assumptions about suspecting certain individuals of crimes valid. When there is a call to the police about domestic violence between a husband and a wife, the police tend to assume that the husband is most likely guilty. Until they gain information to the contrary in specific cases, this is a valid prejudice, due simply to the fact that men are far more violent and destructive than are women. Only those who demonstrate a preference for judging individuals by the actions of the group of which they are a member over judging individuals on their own merits should be charged with prejudice. Tentative conclusions based on group behavior, before information about individuals can reasonably be obtained, should not incur such a charge. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:15:58 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 828 Message-ID: <32DC059E.78CF@TIW.COM> > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:46:15 -0600 > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: Bing Escudero > Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970114114615.006dd308@mail.eden.com> > > > > >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:06:49 -0500 (EST) > >From: Lmhem111@aol.com > >To: theos-l@vnet.net > >Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 820 > >Message-ID: <970113174250_373975408@emout13.mail.aol.com> > > > >JRC, you make a fine defense for Bing. I agree with the merits of your > >argument that the TSA did him a terrible injustice for which someday it will > >reap the Karmic consequences. HQ claimed he was not qualified for the office > >of president yet he was the National President of the Phillipine Section at > >one time. I hope an object history of the TS will one day be written which > >will include that whole unsavory episode about Bing. You certainly won't find > >it in 100 YEARS OF THEOSOPHY by Joy Mills. Someone on the Board told me that > >there was something in Bing's personal background which the BOD couldn't > >reveal. I don't know what that means? A scandal of some sort? What? > > > >LunarPitri > > > > Very interesting. This is the first time I hear about this angle of the > story. The probability is that if this is really true, then the likely hood > of this whatever is having been leaked out is very high. It would be very > interesting to hear if there is someone else who may have heard of any > similar statement. The enormous extent to which they went to change the > bylaws etc seem to indicate that the real reason was not his prior background. > > I Trust it is true. But would like to verify. > > MKR > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:15:17 > From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: Objective/Subjective? > Message-ID: > Bing Escuedero currently resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and he continues to enjoy a reputation as a fine speaker and lecturer on theosophical subjects. I would completely discount any rumors or inuendos attacking the reputation of this very fine gentleman. Were there anything to such stories, his enemies would no doubt have long since spilled the beans. The reference is undoubtedly to one of those scurrilous inuendos which plague this purgatorial realm, of which a number of additional examples could be adduced, to our sad regret. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 01:41:02 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: PI in the SKI Message-ID: In message <32DAD2DC.6D5F@worldnet.att.net>, Jerry Schueler writes >Thus all mathematics are inherently limited. This struck a >major blow to all those mathematicians trying to 'prove' universal >laws -- like God, they may or may not exist, but cannot be proved >and must be taken on faith. How about a mathematics in which we begin with "PI equals ONE." Could be fun ... Burble burble burble .... Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:59:52 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 828 Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Robert Word wrote: > > > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:46:15 -0600 > > From: ramadoss@eden.com > > To: theos-l@vnet.net > > Subject: Re: Bing Escudero > > Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970114114615.006dd308@mail.eden.com> > > > > > > > >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:06:49 -0500 (EST) > > >From: Lmhem111@aol.com > > >To: theos-l@vnet.net > > >Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 820 > > >Message-ID: <970113174250_373975408@emout13.mail.aol.com> > > > > > >JRC, you make a fine defense for Bing. I agree with the merits of your > > >argument that the TSA did him a terrible injustice for which someday it will > > >reap the Karmic consequences. HQ claimed he was not qualified for the office > > >of president yet he was the National President of the Phillipine Section at > > >one time. I hope an object history of the TS will one day be written which > > >will include that whole unsavory episode about Bing. You certainly won't find > > >it in 100 YEARS OF THEOSOPHY by Joy Mills. Someone on the Board told me that > > >there was something in Bing's personal background which the BOD couldn't > > >reveal. I don't know what that means? A scandal of some sort? What? > > > > > >LunarPitri > > > > > > > Very interesting. This is the first time I hear about this angle of the > > story. The probability is that if this is really true, then the likely hood > > of this whatever is having been leaked out is very high. It would be very > > interesting to hear if there is someone else who may have heard of any > > similar statement. The enormous extent to which they went to change the > > bylaws etc seem to indicate that the real reason was not his prior background. > > > > I Trust it is true. But would like to verify. > > > > MKR > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:15:17 > > From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) > > To: theos-l@vnet.net > > Subject: Re: Objective/Subjective? > > Message-ID: > > > > Bing Escuedero currently resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and he continues to > enjoy a reputation as a fine speaker and lecturer on theosophical > subjects. > > I would completely discount any rumors or inuendos attacking the > reputation of this very fine gentleman. Were there anything to such > stories, his enemies would no doubt have long since spilled the beans. > The reference is undoubtedly to one of those scurrilous inuendos which > plague this purgatorial realm, of which a number of additional examples > could be adduced, to our sad regret. > AMEN. I am aware that he has been silently travelling and lecturing at various TS Lodges around the country, even though you may not see any mention of it in AT. I have been wondering why? It is very sad to see what is going on. May be it is Kali Yuga and anything goes. My 2 cents worth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:24:45 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Private Matters? Message-ID: In message <199701141831.KAA02443@proxy1.ba.best.com>, Thoa Tran writes >Didn't we establish that Alan was God? > >TTT > We most certainly did not! Discraceful idea! God. --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:46:37 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: A Horse Is a Horse, of Course, of Course Message-ID: <970114203947_101440188@emout15.mail.aol.com> Murray Stentiford writes--> Whatever JRC's motives, I have found the exchange extremely interesting, both for its content and for the techniques. Tom Robertson writes--> This surprises me. I fail to see anywhere near as much good there is in such an "exchange" as there is harm. Never in a million years will the hypocritical preacher of open-mindedness ever consider the possibility that, in ways in which he and I disagree, he might be wrong. And from a selfish perspective, even though I considered that what he said might be true, I had to wade through so much bullshit in the form of invective and falsehood that I fail to see anything close to a net gain for me. If you see good to all of this, maybe you could more specifically explain it, because I have missed it, so far. Richard Ihle writes--> I have to agree with Murray. Those few of us who view the exchanges on theos-l from a "psychogenetic" perspective are always keenly interested in JRC's "mission." He is "soul-grower" #1, in my opinion. He is quick to see when someone else is trying to establish "semi-Self" dominance by total egoic indulgence at (transformation into) a given level of contaminated consciousness. By providing unpleasant repercussions to individuals, JRC makes them more "Mindful" (more inclined to preserve a modicum of the Once-Removed Vantage) the next time there is a similar type of temptation for egoic indulgence. As an interested bystander, it is my opinion, right or wrong, that JRC has already several times "broken" the semi-Self steed that you were not only riding but that you more or less had ~egoically become~ completely. This is not an easy task in your case, because you often ride a "Fifth-Level thoroughbred"--i.e., you often become "deluded" that you ~really are~ your dispassionate ideas, logical processes, etc. There is no shame in this; in fact, it is a mark of advanced development, since most individuals still primarily choose to ride (and often completely transmogrify into) the Fourth-Level, Desire-Mental nag. Your response above is just one example of how JRC can sometimes cause you to "change horses" (one can guess that you were not in Fifth-Level consciousness when you wrote the above, because the Fifth is associated with pure, dispassionate reason, not like/dislike, anger, etc.). JRC undoubtedly gets some satisfaction from again having proven that you are not able to be completely stable and unshakable in "unadulterated" manas consciousness. If you had a fully developed Sixth-Degree soul (sixth degree of Self-awareness), however, you could utilize Fifth-Level consciousness and never be pulled down from it. This is because the continuity of your Once-Removed Vantage would not let you be totally deluded you were your ideas and logical processes to begin with--i.e., you would thus not regard attacks against the semi-Self you were using as attacks against the "Real You," anyway. Does all of this mean that JRC is necessarily "higher" than you in terms of Self-awareness ("age of the soul")? Not at all. A case could be made (and Eldon started to make it a few posts ago) that JRC does not always carry out his "psychogenetic mission" in a Mindful way himself. Perhaps one might even say that your remarks about "women wanting to be dominated" etc. "drew first semi-Self blood" because it caused some serious bucking of the Fourth-Level, Desire-Mental horse he sometimes rides and sometimes lets go the reins of--i.e., sometimes completely becomes. Like you and most of those on theos-l, of course, JRC also has Fifth- and Sixth-Level horses in his stable. Does the fact that I am presuming to make a something-manas commentary on both of you mean that I am necessarily higher than both of you? Not at all. I can assure you that I regularly completely egoically indulge the crappiest levels of consciousness you can imagine. All I can say is that I think I am getting better at recognizing all the varieties of semi-Selves and maintaining the Once-Removed Vantage upon them. Similarly, JRC is getting better. Similarly, you, I believe, are getting better, and that, in my view at least, is what is the "good to all of this." Tom should say, "Thank you, JRC, you son-of-a-bitch." JRC should say, "Thank you, Tom, you son-of-a-bitch." You both should say, "Thank you, Richard Ihle, you son-of-a-bitch." Godspeed, Mr. Ed From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:40:08 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re: Compassion Message-ID: <32DC3578.7C1C@worldnet.att.net> Chuck, yes but both males and females seem to lack it equally. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:54:49 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Sexist Responses to Tom Message-ID: <32DC38E9.16F5@worldnet.att.net> Tom: This is not surprising to me. You are a male, and for you to say that women are more compassionate sounds like an excuse for why you are not being more compassionate yourself. It suggests that women are more compassionate than men. You are apparently neglecting all of the compassionate men in the world. What do I do, wait until I am born female to develop compassion? Give me a break. Mine are not because I see both men and women being compassionate. Viva la difference! Actually men are only stronger with the upper body, but I am not trying to argue that differences don't exist. My argument is with compassion. If you said that women were generally more nurturing, I probably would agree. But compassion is something that all humanity shares. As a writer and practictioner of magic, I am very familiar with male and female differences, masculine and feminine differences, and so on. Sexism is not seeing differences but in see superiorities. If you want to say that compassion, for example, is feminine, I would probably go along, but this has nothing to do with women being more compassionate than men, which is not a true statement. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:11:03 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re Godel's Theorem Message-ID: <32DC3CB7.2B8F@worldnet.att.net> You can get a feel for it in Roger Penrose, THE EMPEROR'S NEW MIND Penguin, 1989/1991, p 105-112. His paper was in German, but several translations are availble. I came across one a few months ago, but can't recall where...sorry, I will work on it. Jerry S Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:11:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: In message <32DAE454.1D8C@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes > A play on the "God is dead" graffitti of the early 70's. > > Bart Lidofsky Sorry, but you lost me! I am sure you meant well. 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, 15 Jan 1997 02:31:32 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Sexist Responses to Tom Message-ID: <32e93f9c.129165584@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 15 Jan 97, Jerry Schueler wrote: >You are a male, and for >you to say that women are more compassionate sounds >like an excuse for why you are not being more compassionate >yourself. It does? > > >It suggests that women are more compassionate than men. >You are apparently neglecting all of the compassionate >men in the world. I am? This is illogical. >What do I do, wait until I am born >female to develop compassion? I don't see why you would do that. >sexist and yours not.> > >Mine are not because I see both men and women being compassionate. And I don't? >My argument is with compassion. If you said >that women were generally more nurturing, I probably would >agree. But compassion is something that all humanity shares. What's the difference between nurturing and compassion? >As a writer and practictioner of magic, I am very familiar >with male and female differences, masculine and feminine >differences, and so on. Sexism is not seeing differences >but in see superiorities. How can there be differences without there being superiorities? >If you want to say that >compassion, for example, is feminine, I would probably >go along, but this has nothing to do with women being >more compassionate than men, which is not a true statement. If women are more feminine than men, and if compassion is feminine, how could women not be more compassionate than men? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 03:17:16 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: A Horse Is a Horse, of Course, of Course Message-ID: <32eb4332.130083216@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 15 Jan 97, RIhle wrote: >As an interested bystander, it is my opinion, right or wrong, that JRC has >already several times "broken" the semi-Self steed that you were not only >riding but that you more or less had ~egoically become~ completely. I am not clear at all what you mean by this. My best guess is that you mean that I said something that JRC disagreed with, he rode whatever low horse it takes to repeatedly insult me, the effect of which on me is that I felt personally offended and took my ball and went home in a fit. Assuming this is an accurate portrayal of how you think I took it, I believe you are underestimating the extent to which I am interested in rational discussion. Only when I am convinced that the other party is primarily, if not exclusively, interested in bringing the discussion down to a personal level do I give up on it. If I said "men are stronger then women," if JRC said "you're an idiot," and if I responded by looking elsewhere for objective discussion, I fail to see how I have incorporated self. It is the rational course of action to take. Once one party to the conversation is determined to make it personal, my only alternatives are to participate with him in his approach, or leave. For a while, I gave in to the temptation to lower myself to his level, but, due to how dirty that made me feel, I now realize that not participating is the best alternative. >you often become "deluded" that you ~really are~ your >dispassionate ideas, logical processes, etc. I am not very clear about what you mean by this, either. Are you saying that I have not distinguished between myself and my thoughts, that I am mistaken in believing that I have been dispassionate and logical, or something else? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:57:47 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Re: THEOS-ROOTS digest 257 Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970115135747.0069a464@xs4all.nl> >Re: Personal survival: A QUESTION TO MICHAEL ROGG ABOUT THE THEOSOPHICAL >MASTERS > Dear Daniel, Thank you for your interest and comments. I do not have the time presently to go into it fully, but I intend to refer to your message shortly. So, this is merely an acknowledgement. Michael Rogge Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:50:43 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 820 Message-ID: <32DC5413.64D4@sprynet.com> Lmhem111@aol.com wrote: > JRC, you make a fine defense for Bing. I agree with the merits of your > argument that the TSA did him a terrible injustice for which someday it will > reap the Karmic consequences. HQ claimed he was not qualified for the office > of president yet he was the National President of the Phillipine Section at > one time. I hope an object history of the TS will one day be written which > will include that whole unsavory episode about Bing. BTW, I would like to see someone produce the letter that John Algeo supposedly wrote to the membership telling them not to vote for Bing; it is entirely fictional. The only letter that went out was that the office of National Speaker was being eliminated, and replaced by several, non-salaried national speakers, and that Bing was getting several months salary as severance. Secondarily, if the rule about having to serve on the Board of Directors to run for President was to keep Bing from running, then why was Bing specifically excepted from the rule, so that he could run against Dorothy? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:52:17 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Laws of Mathematics Message-ID: <32DC5471.2795@sprynet.com> Murray Stentiford wrote: > > Tom, > > [Bart] > >take the following: -500 = -1000. Is that correct? If you are talking about > >temperature in the Farhenheit scale, then yes, it is. > > [Tom] > That a temperature of -500 might be equivalent to a temperature of -1000 > does not make -500 equivalent to -1000. > > Just to add to the picture, the physical absolute zero is -459.7 degrees > Farhenheit. > > I would ask Bart; what mathematical operation was used to obtain the -500 > and -1000 and to say they are the same temperature? Because both are undefined. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:20:34 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Bing Escudero etc. Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970115042034.00718170@mail.eden.com> At 05:24 PM 1/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:46:15 -0600 >> From: ramadoss@eden.com >> To: theos-l@vnet.net >> Subject: Re: Bing Escudero >> Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970114114615.006dd308@mail.eden.com> >> >> > >> >Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 00:06:49 -0500 (EST) >> >From: Lmhem111@aol.com >> >To: theos-l@vnet.net >> >Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 820 >> >Message-ID: <970113174250_373975408@emout13.mail.aol.com> >> > >> >JRC, you make a fine defense for Bing. I agree with the merits of your >> >argument that the TSA did him a terrible injustice for which someday it will >> >reap the Karmic consequences. HQ claimed he was not qualified for the office >> >of president yet he was the National President of the Phillipine Section at >> >one time. I hope an object history of the TS will one day be written which >> >will include that whole unsavory episode about Bing. You certainly won't find >> >it in 100 YEARS OF THEOSOPHY by Joy Mills. Someone on the Board told me that >> >there was something in Bing's personal background which the BOD couldn't >> >reveal. I don't know what that means? A scandal of some sort? What? >> > >> >LunarPitri >> > >> >> Very interesting. This is the first time I hear about this angle of the >> story. The probability is that if this is really true, then the likely hood >> of this whatever is having been leaked out is very high. It would be very >> interesting to hear if there is someone else who may have heard of any >> similar statement. The enormous extent to which they went to change the >> bylaws etc seem to indicate that the real reason was not his prior background. >> >> I Trust it is true. But would like to verify. >> >> MKR >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:15:17 >> From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) >> To: theos-l@vnet.net >> Subject: Re: Objective/Subjective? >> Message-ID: >> > >Bing Escuedero currently resides in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and he continues to >enjoy a reputation as a fine speaker and lecturer on theosophical >subjects. > >I would completely discount any rumors or inuendos attacking the >reputation of this very fine gentleman. Were there anything to such >stories, his enemies would no doubt have long since spilled the beans. >The reference is undoubtedly to one of those scurrilous inuendos which >plague this purgatorial realm, of which a number of additional examples >could be adduced, to our sad regret. > After Annie Besant died, the Presidency was up for "democratic" election and the two who ran were Ernest Wood and George S Arundale. Somehow some one *claimed* to have brought some message from on high that claimed that the Real Founders of TS wanted GSA to be elected as the next president. Of course the election machinery was in set in full action behind the scenes -- one of the most active being C Jinarajadasa and GSA won the election. There was an attempt to smear Wood for some statement claimed to have been made by him. This was some time after the frenzied pace in which many were supposed to have been put on a fast track initiatiation and some of them claimed to have received the 5th initiation. After the election, Wood was in effect banished and boycotted and moved from Adyar and lived in the USA. I am told that at that time, the TSA leaders who were of course following the party line would not even send Wood on any lecture tour as he was not considered as an *approved* (party line?) lecturer. I believe there is some parallel to Bing's case. Any serious student should try to get hold of Wood's book "Is this Theosophy". One will get to understand a lot of what went on and the dynamics of how action in election matters was going on behind the scene orchestrated by CJ from Adyar, who had access to a number of mailing lists around the world due to his active participation in *occult* matters, masonic activities, Order of the Star of the East etc. etc. BTW Wood was a very dedicated worker and went to India at his own cost and subsisted with his own funds for several years and was secretary to CWL. He travelled and lectured widely and was very active is setting up a chain of schools and colleges in India. Even before he went to India, he was in contact with some real high source by his own efforts. His book on the Seven Rays was the first one ever to be published on the subject and even today TPH is making money on printing and selling it. The book "Is This Theosophy" is extremely rare to find and if anyone has a copy to sell, let me know. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:29:24 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <32DC5D24.285@sprynet.com> m.k. ramadoss wrote: > > BTW, in all the traffic, the is nothing from any responsible elected > National Official of TSA, just for the information of the newbees. There is no need. It's all in the public record, in the courts of Boston. Anybody who REALLY cares can look it up there, and find out ALL the facts, including how much money the lawyers got. Of course, then they'll have to make up something else new. Bart Lidofsky P.S. Here's a hint: the concern was not about members studying Alice Bailey, but of the members changing the Lodge into an Alice Bailey group, and transferring the property out of the TS and into one of the Alice Bailey organizations. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:34:41 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: PI in the SKI Message-ID: <32DC5E61.408B@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > How about a mathematics in which we begin with "PI equals ONE." > > Could be fun ... There already is a mathematics where the value of PI is 1/2. Very useful, as well. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:17:25 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: e-mail address Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970115051725.007275b0@mail.eden.com> Does anyone know the e-mail address of Vic Hao-Chin in Philipines? I had misplaced it. Thanks. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed Jan 15 01:05:14 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: <199701150605.BAA10065@envirolink.org> Thoa Tran writes: >Triaist Man: >>Here's mine. >>chest 40 >>waist 30 >>Underwaist 30-34 mwahaha figure that one out. (I'm a sicko) > >Oh, we've been mistaken. Alan did not turn you into a carrot, he turned you >into a ginseng root! BTW, my math is bad, how big does that make you? > >TTT =o) Rule #1: Never believe a man when he tells you his measurements. :) Rule #2: Never ask a man how big he is because you can (see Rule #1) Hehe...in answer to your question, it would depend on what I started out with. *grin* (I am a deviant carrot, there are very few of us left in the world.) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:52:57 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Dogmatism Message-ID: <32e0b2bb.158636527@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Open-mindedness and non-dogmatism can only be taken so far. In order to make any comparison between ideas, some dogmatism and arrogance is necessary. If one's own ideas are not considered to be better than everyone else's, then whoever else's ideas are considered to be superior would automatically be adopted as one's own. The one who says that "there is no religion higher than truth" implies that he or she believes that there is objective truth to be sought, and that the value of all ideas is dependent on how they conform to this truth. If there is no objective truth, education and truth-seeking have no meaning. In all areas of life, extremes are what should be avoided. One extreme is to be completely dogmatic, closed-minded, and arrogant, automatically assuming that one has nothing to learn from others and that all those who disagree must be mistaken. The other extreme is to be completely open-minded, regarding all ideas as of equal value, never discriminating between any of them, having no confidence in one's ideas, and believing that one has nothing to teach others. The optimal balance is somewhere in between the two, being willing to both teach and learn from others. The ideal is both to admit the impossibility of not regarding one's own ideas as superior and to admit the possibility of their being wrong. A society devoted to spiritual growth should neither be a cult nor equally open to all ideas. Some authority is necessary, and there is a difference in principle between defining a cult as a society which has a leader with some authority and as one which has too much authority. HPB was emphatically opposed to dogmatism, and yet she wrote many dogmatic statements. There would be no purpose to having a society if no one is to teach anyone else. It is impossible to listen to anyone else without intending to have faith, to some extent, in what they say, regarding them, to some extent, as an authority. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:16:25 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (be94bmp) Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 829 Message-ID: Just to clarify something. I didn't send anything on Bing Escuedero. I don't even know who he is! Please enlighten. Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:03:51 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 829 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970115120351.006fdc60@mail.eden.com> At 06:18 AM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Just to clarify something. I didn't send anything on Bing Escuedero. I don't >even know who he is! Please enlighten. > >Ben > > > Hi, did anyone imply or say that you sent anything on Bing Escudero? If so please re-post the msg for all of us to see. Sometimes, when quotes and re-requotes end up in a confusion leading to wrong quotes being attributed to wrong writer/poster. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:10:02 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970115121002.006fa7d0@mail.eden.com> At 11:39 PM 1/14/97 -0500, you wrote: >m.k. ramadoss wrote: >> >> BTW, in all the traffic, the is nothing from any responsible elected >> National Official of TSA, just for the information of the newbees. > > There is no need. It's all in the public record, in the courts of >Boston. Anybody who REALLY cares can look it up there, and find out ALL >the facts, including how much money the lawyers got. Of course, then >they'll have to make up something else new. > > Bart Lidofsky > >P.S. Here's a hint: the concern was not about members studying Alice >Bailey, but of the members changing the Lodge into an Alice Bailey >group, and transferring the property out of the TS and into one of the >Alice Bailey organizations. > Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers representing the parties. Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better understanding. MKRamadoss TSA Member, San Antonio TX Lodge From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:43:25 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Private matters? Message-ID: <199701151315.IAA09233@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Private matters? > Date: Monday, January 13, 1997 11:16 PM > > Ann, > I'm not surprised. Some years ago, long before Elizabeth came so we can't > blame her, there was a major purgation of books in the Olcott Library to make > sure everything there fit the idea of theosophical purity. Of course no one > said it like that, but that's basically what happened, and, as Candles in the > Sun and Is This Theosophy committed the cardinal sin of actually telling the > truth about some of the nutcases in the TS during the Besant-Leadbeater > period, they sort of disappeared-- I think into the fireplace one winter > night. > Why not a bonfire in the driveway? I'm sure that would have piqued the interest of the neighbors. It doesn't surprise me. Back in the late seventies, at the LCC, the priest that was in charge of book sales left Chicago to live in Ojai. He'd stocked the book case with volumes about things other than the LCC, including Eastern religions. The minute he left, the case was cleared of anything but LCC-related material, all of which is ordered from St. Alban Press, the official US LCC publisher. It was even frowned upon to TALK about anything that was non- Christian from the pulpit, even though it was done occasionally. I imagine that some of this may have come out of the battles that came after K resigned. There were some people who wanted the church to be Theosophically oriented and others who simply wanted to break away altogether and make it a regular Christian church. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:42:29 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Re: A horse is a horse, of course, of course. Message-ID: <32DCECD4.48C4@withoutwalls.com> Mr.Ed. said: >Tom should say, "Thank you, JRC, you son-of-a-bitch." >JRC should say, "Thank you, Tom, you son-of-a-bitch." >You both should say, "Thank you, Richard Ihle, you son-of-a-bitch." >Godspeed Sounds like a bunch of "horse-should" to me. Wilbur From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:23:35 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: New Dissertation on Theosophy Message-ID: <32DD20A7.170E@eden.com> Here is a PhD dissertation on Theosophy presented at Rutgers University. ================================================== Joy DIXON Joy wrote her dissertation on "Gender, Politics, and Culture in the New Age: Theosophy in England, 1880-1935," under Judith Walkowitz's direction, and received her degree in January 1993. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 97 06:45:09 -0800 From: Richard Trump Subject: RE: A Bit of Humor Message-ID: <199701151502.HAA22391@intergate.glenn-co.k12.ca.us> -- [ From: Richard Trump * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- Bart Lidofsky wrote: >Q: How many Theosophists does it take to change a lightbulb? >A: None. By the time they finish discussing whether the lightbulb >needs changing, the proper method in which to change the >lightbulb, how it might have been done historically, and how >everybody else changes lightbulbs, it's already daylight. A: None. It was the karma of the bulb (and perhaps the lamp) to burn out. In time it will replace itself, perhaps with a higher but never with a lower wattage bulb. RIch -- ************************************************* Even as Truth, does Error have its lovers. Pythagoras ************************************************* From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:57:52 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: useless commentary? Message-ID: <32DCF06D.69FD@withoutwalls.com> >>My argument is with compassion. If you said >>that women were generally more nurturing, I probably would >>agree. But compassion is something that all humanity shares. >What's the difference between nurturing and compassion? Nourishment in action as contrasted with sympathy and the desire to help relieve suffering. >>As a writer and practictioner of magic, I am very familiar >>with male and female differences, masculine and feminine >>differences, and so on. Sexism is not seeing differences >>but in see superiorities. >How can there be differences without there being superiorities? That does seems to be the question you keep getting stuck on. I'd suggest "with love, mutual respect and appreciation." >>If you want to say that >>compassion, for example, is feminine, I would probably >>go along, but this has nothing to do with women being >>more compassionate than men, which is not a true statement. >If women are more feminine than men, and if compassion is feminine, how >could women not be more compassionate than men? Because you are generalizing again. 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, 15 Jan 1997 07:11:21 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Once Again Message-ID: <32DCF394.F43@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >If I said "men are stronger then women," if JRC said >"you're an idiot," and if I responded by looking elsewhere for objective >discussion, I fail to see how I have incorporated self. (and snip) >>you often become "deluded" that you ~really are~ your >>dispassionate ideas, logical processes, etc. >I am not very clear about what you mean by this, either. Are you saying >that I have not distinguished between myself and my thoughts, that I am >mistaken in believing that I have been dispassionate and logical, or >something else? It seems like you believe that "being objective", "dispassionate and logical" somehow insulates you from "incorporating self" (or some kind of less desirable character). It does not. Logic is itself just another corpse of self. 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, 15 Jan 1997 17:07:48 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: useless commentary? Message-ID: <32e209dd.180941624@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 15 Jan 97, Mark Kusek wrote: >Mary Poppins wrote: >>How can there be differences without there being superiorities? > >That does seems to be the question you keep getting stuck on. >I'd suggest "with love, mutual respect and appreciation." Does that mean that you believe that unless all people regard themselves as identical in all abilities, they have not ideally loved, respected, and appreciated each other? >>If women are more feminine than men, and if compassion is feminine, how >>could women not be more compassionate than men? > >Because you are generalizing again. I don't follow your logic. Is there something false about generalizations? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 17:07:54 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Once Again Message-ID: <32e30ae4.181204934@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 15 Jan 97, Mark Kusek wrote: >It seems like you believe that "being objective", "dispassionate and >logical" somehow insulates you from "incorporating self" (or some kind >of less desirable character). It does not. Logic is itself just another >corpse of self. To the extent that logic and objectivity are practiced, self must be removed. The correct use of logic _is_ truth, and is antithetical to the incorporation of self. They can both exist at the same time, but only if devotion to truth is incomplete. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:38:06 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theosophical URL Message-ID: <32DD15FE.5E00@eden.com> Here is a URL you may want to visit. http://www.ix.net.au/~cupton/ MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:53:57 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Women & Enlightenment Message-ID: <32DD19B5.5D47@eden.com> Here is URL which has some very interesting material. BTW, the whole print issue on the subject is on line. http://www.moksha.org/wie/j10/j10.html MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:13:11 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <199701151813.KAA10364@palrel1.hp.com> Tom wrote: > Open-mindedness and non-dogmatism can only be taken so far. > > In order to make any comparison between ideas, some dogmatism and arrogance > is necessary. If one's own ideas are not considered to be better than > everyone else's, then whoever else's ideas are considered to be superior > would automatically be adopted as one's own. The one who says that "there > is no religion higher than truth" implies that he or she believes that > there is objective truth to be sought, and that the value of all ideas is > dependent on how they conform to this truth. If there is no objective > truth, education and truth-seeking have no meaning. I think you have good ideas, Tom, and haven't really deserved the beating you have taken here. The problem is probably the words you choose, together with some personality dynamics within the list. When you say, "some dogmatism and arrogance is necessary," I think I know your point, especially after your following explanation - and it is a good one. But I see how others might jump on you if they are looking at the words more than the concept. Anyway, enough of my babbling on that ... My take on dogma and creed: There *is* a sound basis for basing ones life on. St. Paul tried to capture this thing in his letter to my namesake, Titus. He called it the "sound doctrine". The sound doctrine is a doctrine in the "house not made with hands", the temple of the soul. But in every circumstance the sound doctrine is projected into a statement or rule. Some take the rule of thumb and apply it to every circumstance, i.e., make a dogma out of it. St. Paul was aware of this and advised Titus to "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." The "rule" is really a transcendental concept. Lao Tsu called it the Tao. "The Tao which can be told is not the eternal Tao". Should one not even attempt to make rules? If the rules are well thought out, I think we should make the attempt. Periodically we may have to revise them or scrap them, but they serve a vital purpose. Here is an example of how they serve well. Let's say you are trying to teach tennis to young man or woman who has never played. You can't very well say, "Develop your own style." They don't have access to that yet. So you say, "Hold the racket like this." "Swing like this." "Approach the net like this." They really appreciate you saying something definite and not wishy-washy. Eventually, by following the rules, they discover the Rules (capitalized). Then they can follow the Rules but sometimes break the rules (lower case). Every advanced teacher will start you out with rules. He or she is no teacher if he or she doesn't. Behind the rule, spelled in the alphabet or poor words, is a Rule, spelled in the alphabet of the soul. That is what they are finding the technology to get to. All too often, well meaning "teachers" give an abstract goal, but are clueless themselves about the technology to get there. So their statements are wishy-washy. "Everybody is right. Nobody is wrong. Do what you want." - Titus of Auburn, California. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:14:26 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 829 Message-ID: <32DD1E82.7BA9@TIW.COM> > > Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:24:45 +0000 > From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: Private Matters? > Message-ID: > > In message <199701141831.KAA02443@proxy1.ba.best.com>, Thoa Tran > writes > >Didn't we establish that Alan was God? > > > >TTT > > > We most certainly did not! Discraceful idea! > > God. > --------- There is an Indian tale, I believe it may be mentioned in one of the Upanishads. A great Yogi came to the court of the celestial God Indra, and had an entire conversation on the meaning of life. During the course of the conversation, the Yogi commented that each ant in a stream of ants walking across the floor of the celestial palace of Indra had itself been Indra in a previous universe. I think that if Alan is not God, that we could arrange to make the appointment, provided that he is willing to take on the consequent commitment in a future life. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:23:35 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: New Dissertation on Theosophy Message-ID: <32DD20A7.170E@eden.com> Here is a PhD dissertation on Theosophy presented at Rutgers University. ================================================== Joy DIXON Joy wrote her dissertation on "Gender, Politics, and Culture in the New Age: Theosophy in England, 1880-1935," under Judith Walkowitz's direction, and received her degree in January 1993. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:34:13 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Quest+AT Message-ID: <199701151934.OAA04432@newman.cris.com> I've just received the January issue of the new combined Quest/American Theosophist. The two publications have been merged and will be published monthly with four special issues a year. John Algeo is now the editor and William Metzger is the Managing and Special Issues Editor. The publication is the usual 8 1/2 X 11, black and white, with a third color on the cover. Right now, all I can say is, "Thank Goddess, there's one less magazine coming to my house!" -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 07:32:23 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Bing Escudero etc. Message-ID: <199701151934.OAA04414@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > > Of course the election machinery was in set in full action behind > the scenes -- one of the most active being C Jinarajadasa and GSA won the > election. There was an attempt to smear Wood for some statement claimed to > have been made by him. This was some time after the frenzied pace in which > many were supposed to have been put on a fast track initiatiation and some > of them claimed to have received the 5th initiation. > I've read about people in TS "proclaiming" their initiations. One isn't supposed to talk about one's initiations, as is it between the person and their own soul and really of no concern to anyone. The focus should be on service and work, not marching around telling everyone about it, as if they cared, anyway. Either those people didn't know what they were talking about in terms of initiation or they were making it up. Sounds like they were more concerned with attaining positions of power and influence, rather than pursuing a live of service. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:49:08 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: <199701151949.LAA05551@proxy2.ba.best.com> Triaist Man: >I am a deviant carrot TTT (putting away the boiling water): Darn! I was hankering for ginseng tea.=o) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 15:24:30 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: PI in the SKI Message-ID: <970115152406_470647808@emout07.mail.aol.com> It's sort of like the PI R square business when everyone knows that pie are round. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:58:37 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Triaist Man's Measurements Message-ID: <199701152058.MAA29433@proxy1.ba.best.com> P.S. So you started out with 30? TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 01:10:51 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 829 Message-ID: <94yZdVAbAY3yEwN0@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <32DD1E82.7BA9@TIW.COM>, Robert Word writes >There is an Indian tale, I believe it may be mentioned in one of the >Upanishads. A great Yogi came to the court of the celestial God Indra, >and had an entire conversation on the meaning of life. During the >course of the conversation, the Yogi commented that each ant in a stream >of ants walking across the floor of the celestial palace of Indra had >itself been Indra in a previous universe. > >I think that if Alan is not God, that we could arrange to make the >appointment, provided that he is willing to take on the consequent >commitment in a future life. Alan respectfully declines. Enough commitments as it is. 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, 16 Jan 1997 01:05:45 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: In message <199701151949.LAA05551@proxy2.ba.best.com>, Thoa Tran writes >Triaist Man: >>I am a deviant carrot > >TTT (putting away the boiling water): >Darn! I was hankering for ginseng tea.=o) > You can boil carrots ..... 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, 15 Jan 1997 21:24:03 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <32DD9143.69B4@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > > Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts > does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers > representing the parties. > > Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the > meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to > access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better > understanding. There was a lot of material sent to the Lodges explaining the situation. I cannot post it publicly, but, if it was placed in the minutes of the Board of Directors of your Lodge (as it was with mine), then you should have a right (depending on the laws of Texas; certainly by New York law) to examine those minutes as a member of your Lodge. Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board meetings at Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do your research for you (meaning that you would probably have to physically go there to examine their minutes). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:37:16 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Women & Enlightenment Message-ID: <32DD945C.72D3@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > > Here is URL which has some very interesting material. BTW, the whole > print issue on the subject is on line. Andrew Cohen used to be a really nice guy, but I think that he's beginning to buy his own hype. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:08:24 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Women & Enlightenment Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970116030824.007105dc@mail.eden.com> At 09:48 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> Here is URL which has some very interesting material. BTW, the whole >> print issue on the subject is on line. > > Andrew Cohen used to be a really nice guy, but I think that he's >beginning to buy his own hype. > > Bart Lidofsky There was one recent issue where several wellknown women were written up and I thought it was a well done issue. When I posted a msg in one of the usenet groups, I had several requests trying to locate the magazine. I actually bought a copy of the magazine which later I gave it a friend who was very interested. This issue has been scanned and is on-line. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 21:11:40 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970116031140.00753790@mail.eden.com> At 09:28 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts >> does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers >> representing the parties. >> >> Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the >> meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to >> access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better >> understanding. > > There was a lot of material sent to the Lodges explaining the >situation. I cannot post it publicly, but, if it was placed in the >minutes of the Board of Directors of your Lodge (as it was with mine), >then you should have a right (depending on the laws of Texas; certainly >by New York law) to examine those minutes as a member of your Lodge. >Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board meetings at >Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do your research for >you (meaning that you would probably have to physically go there to >examine their minutes). > > Bart Lidofsky Here in San Antonio, the lodge has a small membership and we all have known each other for several years and I am not sure if any material was received here. Usually the business matters are paid very little attention here. Let me check with some of my friends who have held offices at that time. Thanks for the information. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:10:11 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Women & Enlightenment Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970116041011.006bf8f0@mail.eden.com> At 09:48 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> Here is URL which has some very interesting material. BTW, the whole >> print issue on the subject is on line. > > Andrew Cohen used to be a really nice guy, but I think that he's >beginning to buy his own hype. > > Bart Lidofsky > In a recent issue there was a very good article on Vimla Thakar in which she describes a very important meeting with Jiddu Krishnamurti which changed the direction of her life. Here is an interesting excerpt: "Putting Bombs under all old people who follow the wrong line?" ========================== Vimala went to meet Krishnamurti in Benares in December 1961. He asked her what she had been doing and she told him that she spent most of her time speaking with friends who were interested in her life. "That is quite natural," he replied. "But why don't you explode? Why don't you put bombs under all these old people who follow the wrong line? Why don't you go around India? Is anyone doing this? If there were half a dozen, I would not say a word to you. There is none. . . . There is so much to do. There is no time. . . . Go - shout from the house tops, 'You are on the wrong track! This is not the way to peace!'. . . Go out and set them on fire! There is none who is doing this. Not even one. . . . What are you waiting for?" This conversation shook her to the core, but she also felt that "putting bombs under people" was not the whole story. Surely, she felt, one must also show people the right line of action and point out the way to rebuild the house. Further talks with him convinced her, and dispelled ideas which she saw were holding her back - for example, the idea that she should have her own language before starting to speak publicly - and also her fear of making mistakes. This was a pivotal moment, and in her words, "the burning ashes became aflame." >From this point on she started traveling and addressing meetings in various countries in Europe to which she was invited. She soon encountered opposition both from those who did not like the fact that she spoke on her own authority and not as Krishnamurti's messenger and from those who accused her of plagiarism. Krishnamurti was supportive: "I know the whole game. They have played it on me. They want authority. Is not the world sick? I was afraid you would have to go through it. I was hoping that you wouldn't have to. . . . It is not easy to stand up alone. It is extremely difficult. And yet the world needs such sannyasins, true Brahmins who would stand up alone, who would stand up for truth. You know if I had money I would give it to you. But I have none. I go everywhere as a guest - I have not even a place of my own." After this she met with Krishnamurti now and then, but she felt the need to spend time with him was finished, "as you only want to meet a person who is away from you." Since 1962 she has felt Krishnamurti's presence within her. >From then on she spent her life traveling all over the world giving talks, teaching wherever she was invited, up until 1991, when she decided to remain in one place. ================================== MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 00:31:21 -0500 From: Ken Malkin Subject: Wheaton Minutes Message-ID: <32DDBD29.7B76@gil.net> Bart wrote, There was a lot of material sent to the Lodges explaining the situation. I cannot post it publicly, but, if it was placed in thec minutes of the Board of Directors of your Lodge (as it was with mine),then you should have a right (depending on the laws of Texas; certainly by New York law) to examine those minutes as a member of your Lodge. Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board meetings at Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do your research for you (meaning that you would probably have to physically go there to examine their minutes). Bart, I asked in St. Pete and checked once again with our historian in Deerfield, further Sy Ginsburg is well versed in this matter, all agree that NO information was forthcoming from Wheaton regarding this matter. Bart, if you will give a date of publication, I will try to look again. We in Florida are watching the posting from around the country with interest. A member of the Deerfield lodge resides in Chicago now and I'll ask her to check and see if Wheaton will allow her to view the particular minutes. I'll keep you posted. Thanks in advance for your efforts on our behalf with this request. Ken Malkin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 16 03:47:10 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: PI in the SKI Message-ID: <199701160847.DAA25285@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >How about a mathematics in which we begin with "PI equals ONE." > >Could be fun ... > >Burble burble burble .... > >Alan You mean it doesn't? Blubber blubber blubber --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu Jan 16 03:52:44 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: <199701160852.DAA25437@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199701151949.LAA05551@proxy2.ba.best.com>, Thoa Tran >>Triaist Man: >>>I am a deviant carrot >> >>TTT (putting away the boiling water): >>Darn! I was hankering for ginseng tea.=o) >> >You can boil carrots ..... > >Alan You don't like me very much, do you...:) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:27:28 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <9701161827.AA05295@toto.csustan.edu> M K Ramadoss wrote: > >As far as the cancellation of charters in Canada and Denmark >etc. no one who has first hand access to the information has >come forth and explained why the charter was canceled. >Cancellation of a National Section Charter is not a simple or >easy decision at the highest level, especially at a time the > membership world wide is perhaps at its lowest and perhaps >shrinking. So there should be some valid and strong reasons. The >questions is what is preventing anyone who knows full facts to >come out with details. > > Again why the secrecy? What or who is/are being protected? JHE Doss, what specific questions do you feel have not yet been answered concerning the expulsions of the Canadian and Danish sections? Please list them. Maybe we can find the answers. Cancellation of a National Section Charter is a decision made by the International President with the approval of the General Council. However, I have never heard of the General Council opposing any decision of the President. Considering the fact that Radha has canceled the charters of three sections since she has become president, I would suggest that such cancellations are indeed a "simple or easy decision at the highest level" (at least for Radha) regardless of whether the worldwide membership is shrinking or not. Bart Lidofsky writes: >There WAS an official explanation of Canada: According to >Canadian law, the Canadian section lost some tax breaks by being >part of the Theosophical Society (Canadian only organizations >got breaks which organizations that were part of an >international organziation did not get). The Canadian section >therefore amended its bylaws so that it no longer declared >itself to be part of the Theosophical Society. The Theosophical >Society therefore revoked its charter; if it allowed the >Canadian section to keep its charter, then it would have been >participating in a fraud. JHE Your explanation seems quite different from the one Stan Trelor published in the CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST at the time. What is the source of your information here? ------------------------------------------ |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: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:28:25 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Candles in the Sun Message-ID: <9701161828.AA05333@toto.csustan.edu> AEB >> Early last year someone recommended that I read Emily Lutyens >>"Candles in the Sun" (1957). After Christmas, I went to Quest >>Books and they told me it was out of print and also, not in the >>library. Does anyone have any information about where I could >>get this book and/or Mary Lutyens' >> new book? >> >> -AEB > MKR >I believe the book may be out of print. > >Did you check with Olcott library? They may have a copy you may >be able to borrow. > >If any one can locate a copy it would be JHE. > >It is a very interesting book. JHE I happen to have two copies that I picked up in the mid 1970's. Haven't seen another copy since-except once. I'll let one go for $25.00. The other has a damaged dust jacket. I'll take $20.00 for that one. Anyone else with book requests? ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:23:27 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Question for Murray Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970117113543.1ea73a14@iprolink.co.nz> Tom >>Whatever JRC's motives, I have found the exchange extremely interesting, >>both for its content and for the techniques. >This surprises me. I fail to see anywhere near as much good there is in >such an "exchange" as there is harm. Never in a million years will the >hypocritical preacher of open-mindedness ever consider the possibility >that, in ways in which he and I disagree, he might be wrong. And from a >selfish perspective, even though I considered that what he said might be >true, I had to wade through so much bullshit in the form of invective and >falsehood that I fail to see anything close to a net gain for me. Once he >defended his statement about the connection between the TS's lawsuit with >the Boston Lodge and the Boston Lodge's studying of Alice Bailey in the >lamest way possible, instead of admitting he had lied through his teeth in >implying that he had a reason to claim such a connection, it was the last >straw and I decided not to read his posts any more. If you see good to >all of this, maybe you could more specifically explain it, because I have >missed it, so far. Yes, I was quite surprised when you said you wouldn't read JRC any more as I consider you one of the more tenacious people on this list. You're coming across to me as being too close to this to see what's going on very well and have got caught up in the idea and feeling that you've been the subject of invective. You seem to be missing the broader picture of what JRC was doing, and why. You particularly seem to be trapped for the time being in the interpretation of what JRC has done as "personal vendetta" and "invective". But it is not necessarily so, and in my opinion, most certainly wasn't so. Your stated reason for dipping out doesn't wash very well, either, IMO. You haven't given yourself many choices if that's the only interpretation you can make; that JRC has lied through his teeth in bringing in the Bailey factor. The earliest thing I recall JRC saying that started the Bailey component of your interchange was >the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million >dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges >for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*. You seem to have missed the fact that JRC didn't say it was a fact. He said what he considered the *current danger* to be. Not a very substantial bone to grab and run off with it, it would seem. You should have argued the likelihood of the proposed danger. Whatever the intellectual components to the Boston situation, I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but there is truth in other dimensions too - emotional and subjective, for instance. In the 30 or so years I've been in the TS, the Bailey question has been one of the biggest dividing factors. The bitterest fights in the NZ TS scene have been underpinned by distrust of versus loyalty to Alice Bailey, with people in the E.S. usually being distrustful of her, in my experience. As for JRC, he has said >It was my intention to be just that. ... to reflect your energy back at >you as precisely as possible. and in a later post >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. So JRC has clearly stated what he was trying to do. I don't blame you for not liking it, but if you can stand back a bit and learn from it, it could be a good thing. In the more than 2 years I have been on this list, I have observed JRC to write with a very wide range of styles, reaching peaks of expressiveness and beauty that I have rarely seen elsewhere. You are missing a hell of a lot if you choose to stay stuck in the perceptions of invective and vendetta. We've mentioned projection before, but could it be that this response has more roots in yourself than anywhere else? Finally, I mentioned technique above. I am always interested to see how people deal with each other in discussion, and I watch the group processes with as much interest as the actual subjects themselves. Sometimes more ....! Hang in there, Tom. If you and JRC ever got into a more constructive mutual writing relationship, I'd REALLY love to see it. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:39:21 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Nurturing vs Compassion Message-ID: <32DE83E9.283@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >What's the difference between nurturing and compassion? Nurturing is a thing we do, while compassion is a thing that we have within us. If we have compassion, we naturally tend to nurture. But we can nurture with little or no compassion (many teachers, for example). Maybe the biggest difference is motive. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:43:41 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Superiority?? Message-ID: <32DE84ED.42E8@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >How can there be differences without there being superiorities? Is cold superior to hot? Is big superior to little? Is up superior to down? Both sides of any duality are equally important, and superiority is very relative. Same with male and female or with masculinity and femininity. The heads of a coin is different from the tails, but one is hardly superior to the other. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:34:47 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Question for Murray Message-ID: <32e6837d.11654700@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Thu, 16 Jan 97, Murray Stentiford wrote: >Yes, I was quite surprised when you said you wouldn't read JRC any more >as I consider you one of the more tenacious people on this list. As long as I see profit to an exchange, I will stick with it. But once it is sufficiently clear to me that what I say will be deliberately twisted to fit a prejudiced agenda, I see no point. Disagreement is fine, as long as it is sincere. But how anyone could miss JRC's blatant dishonesty is beyond me. >You seem to be missing the broader picture of what JRC was doing, and >why. If such a broader picture exists, I have definitely missed it. >You particularly seem to be trapped for the time being in the interpretation >of what JRC has done as "personal vendetta" and "invective". But it is not >necessarily so, and in my opinion, most certainly wasn't so. I am also trapped into the interpretation of seeing what JRC is doing on this list to be precisely the very thing he condemns the TS for - trying to suppress ideas with which he disagrees. I have never seen such a gaping blind spot to one's own hypocrisy before. >Your stated reason for dipping out doesn't wash very well, either, IMO. You >haven't given yourself many choices if that's the only interpretation you >can make; that JRC has lied through his teeth in bringing in the Bailey >factor. What alternative do you see? If I said that the TS sued the Boston Lodge because it was located on Cape Cod, and, to justify my claim of causation, I said that there was a lawsuit, and that Boston was on Cape Cod, what would you think of me? >The earliest thing I recall JRC saying that started the Bailey component of >your interchange was > >>the current danger is that HQ will spend another half-million >>dollars of the Society's resources *suing* another one of its own Lodges >>for studying ... Hitler? no, *Alice Bailey*. > >You seem to have missed the fact that JRC didn't say it was a fact. He said >what he considered the *current danger* to be. Not a very substantial bone >to grab and run off with it, it would seem. You should have argued the >likelihood of the proposed danger. What evidence is there that there is such a danger, if it has never happened, yet? But this is only what started it. You might have missed the later exchange when I asked specifically if this was referring to the Boston Lodge. He said it was. I asked for the basis of his contention of there being a connection between the lawsuit and their studying of Alice Bailey. After repeating many times how stupid I was for merely making assertions without having "formal proofs" to back them up, and saying how he does not make statements without having evidence to back them up, his only response was that there was a lawsuit and that they studied Alice Bailey. For him to make a statement such as this, he was at least consistent in one way. He must REALLY think I'm stupid. Murray quoted JRC: >>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. I had not read this ridiculous statement before. He equates an admitted attempt at intimidation with "the way of the Tao"! I might as well equate how I would respond to him if he ever got in my face physically the same way he has tried to bully me off this list with "the way of the Tao." >So JRC has clearly stated what he was trying to do. In this case, I believe him. >I don't blame you for not liking it, but if you can stand back a bit and learn >from it, it could be a good thing. I am happy to learn from people who will point out how I am wrong. I fail to see the relevance of that to JRC, who is unable to do that. >In the more than 2 years I have been on this list, I have observed JRC to >write with a very wide range of styles, reaching peaks of expressiveness >and beauty that I have rarely seen elsewhere. You are missing a hell of a >lot if you choose to stay stuck in the perceptions of invective and vendetta. I most definitely will "choose to stay stuck in the perception" that JRC couldn't tell the truth his way out of a paper bag. If I have to wade through that much bullshit to get to all of his "beauty," I'll pass. >We've mentioned projection before, but could it be that this response has >more roots in yourself than anywhere else? Could be. If anyone sees this, and wants to approach me civilly, I will be all ears. >Finally, I mentioned technique above. I am always interested to see how >people deal with each other in discussion, and I watch the group processes >with as much interest as the actual subjects themselves. I found the relationship between Adolf Hitler and Jews to be interesting. >Hang in there, Tom. No amount of dishonesty and attempts at intimidation from someone as easy to see through as JRC will stop me from doing that. >If you and JRC ever got into a more constructive mutual writing >relationship, I'd REALLY love to see it. What are the chances that he will consider living up to his vaunted "open-mindedness" any time soon? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:18:30 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 832 Message-ID: <32DE9B26.4684@TIW.COM> > > Date: Thu Jan 16 03:47:10 1997 > From: John Straughn > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: PI in the SKI > Message-ID: <199701160847.DAA25285@envirolink.org> > > Dr. A.M.Bain writes: > >How about a mathematics in which we begin with "PI equals ONE." > > > >Could be fun ... > > > >Burble burble burble .... > > > >Alan I gather that you are not a mathematician. > > You mean it doesn't? > > Blubber blubber blubber > --- > The Triaist I gather that you are not a mathematician. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:03:54 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: JHE Book Requests Message-ID: <970116165543_912783777@emout14.mail.aol.com> << JHE Anyone else with book requests? >> Yes. (I would send this privately if I had the specific name or author of the first.) Many decades ago, I stumbled across a certain book on "esoteric studies" or "developmental techniques." The two things I remember which may help identify and track it down are these: 1) The author firmly maintains that the principal mistake meditators make is not continuing to try to ~actually see~ the ajna chakra in a normal, visual-sight way (albeit with the eyes closed). In other words, he says that meditators too often merely hold their attention at that point and let themselves drift into an effortless "pictorial consciousness." 2) The book prominently features a drawing of a walking man. The author asserts that if this is properly understood, it "provides the key to all advanced adept abilities." Not very much to go on, I'm afraid. However, I would appreciate leads from anyone on this. There is more hope for my second selection: Jerry, do you have any copies of THE TALKING IMAGE OF URUR by Franz Harmann? Thanks and Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:22:59 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Alice Bailey - What attracts people to her writings? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970117002259.006b6ea4@mail.eden.com> Murray wrote: Whatever the intellectual components to the Boston situation, I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but there is truth in other dimensions too - emotional and subjective, for instance. In the 30 or so years I've been in the TS, the Bailey question has been one of the biggest dividing factors. The bitterest fights in the NZ TS scene have been underpinned by distrust of versus loyalty to Alice Bailey, with people in the E.S. usually being distrustful of her, in my experience. I do not know much about Alice Bailey's philosophy and I am curious to find out what it is that attracts individuals as well as loyalty to her. May be some one who has a first hand understanding/experience in observing what has been going on, it would be in interesting to get a feedback. Such feedback also can throw light on the drawbacks of the other philosophies - HPB, Judge, AB, CWL, GSA, CJ etc. etc. When the issues are very clearly understood, all distrust and all the fall outs of it will be gone, hopefully. True searchers of Truth, will be loyal to Truth and Truth along and will not follow any particular personality. After all all of us are students searching for Truth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:35:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970117003505.006feabc@mail.eden.com> At 01:25 PM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote: > >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >>As far as the cancellation of charters in Canada and Denmark >>etc. no one who has first hand access to the information has >>come forth and explained why the charter was canceled. >>Cancellation of a National Section Charter is not a simple or >>easy decision at the highest level, especially at a time the >> membership world wide is perhaps at its lowest and perhaps >>shrinking. So there should be some valid and strong reasons. The >>questions is what is preventing anyone who knows full facts to >>come out with details. >> >> Again why the secrecy? What or who is/are being protected? > > >JHE >Doss, what specific questions do you feel have not yet been >answered concerning the expulsions of the Canadian and Danish >sections? Please list them. Maybe we can find the answers. > Question is very simple. What is *the* real reason for expulsions? Not the simplistic legal or other reasons usually given (or not given) for public consumption. When cancellation/expulsion is done, I believe *no* reason or *justification* is required to be given. I will give you an example. I believe when Adyar group sued (I believe the Danish Section for recovery of assets) and lost, the allegation by Adyar attorneys was that there was some question about the appropriation/misappropriation of funds, while everyone knew that the key members in the Section were all extremely honest and spotless in their reputation and would not misuse even a single penny. So the real reason is not what is seen in public domain papers. >Cancellation of a National Section Charter is a decision made by >the International President with the approval of the General >Council. However, I have never heard of the General Council >opposing any decision of the President. Considering the fact >that Radha has canceled the charters of three sections since she >has become president, I would suggest that such cancellations are >indeed a "simple or easy decision at the highest level" (at least >for Radha) regardless of whether the worldwide membership is >shrinking or not. > While this may be true in general, I am aware of an instance in which when Annie Besant was at the height of popularity and power, her suggestion to modify the Object of TS was turned down by the General Council. > >Bart Lidofsky writes: > >>There WAS an official explanation of Canada: According to >>Canadian law, the Canadian section lost some tax breaks by being >>part of the Theosophical Society (Canadian only organizations >>got breaks which organizations that were part of an >>international organziation did not get). The Canadian section >>therefore amended its bylaws so that it no longer declared >>itself to be part of the Theosophical Society. The Theosophical >>Society therefore revoked its charter; if it allowed the >>Canadian section to keep its charter, then it would have been >>participating in a fraud. > >JHE >Your explanation seems quite different from the one Stan Trelor >published in the CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST at the time. What is the >source of your information here? > > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:30:36 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: In message <199701160852.DAA25437@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >>In message <199701151949.LAA05551@proxy2.ba.best.com>, Thoa Tran >>>Triaist Man: >>>>I am a deviant carrot >>> >>>TTT (putting away the boiling water): >>>Darn! I was hankering for ginseng tea.=o) >>> >>You can boil carrots ..... >> >>Alan > >You don't like me very much, do you...:) >--- >The Triaist > How can I NOT like someone who wants to be turned into a carrot? Maybe it's about time to change into something else that can't be boiled. Recent posts suggest there is a vacancy for the job as God. Maybe you could apply for that? I like you well enough. Oh yes. Alan :-) {Big friendly smile} --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 01:27:28 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <32ead15e.31591926@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 15 Jan 97, Titus Roth wrote: >Should one not even attempt to make rules? If the rules are well thought >out, I think we should make the attempt. Periodically we may have to revise >them or scrap them, but they serve a vital purpose. Here is an example of >how they serve well. Let's say you are trying to teach tennis to young man >or woman who has never played. You can't very well say, "Develop your own >style." They don't have access to that yet. So you say, "Hold the racket like >this." "Swing like this." "Approach the net like this." They really appreciate >you saying something definite and not wishy-washy. Eventually, by following >the rules, they discover the Rules (capitalized). Then they can follow the >Rules but sometimes break the rules (lower case). This is analogous to why I have the exact opposite opinion of why the TS is in decline from those who think it has suppressed the truth too much. Up to a certain level of development, fixed rules are better than an open-minded intuitive approach, just as, for an individual with a broken leg, crutches are better than trying to walk without them. Without going through the dogmatic stage, the intuitive stage could not be reached. The TS should be more like a cult. In arriving at the optimal balance, destructive extremes must be moved toward. I remember when the 1994 Crime Bill was passed. I was listening to the Art Bell show, and Art was ranting and raving about how "Benedict Gingrich had sold our 2nd Amendment rights down the river" by voting for, and leading approximately 40 other Republicans to vote for, the bill, which outlawed many semi-automatic weapons. Believing that such an movement towards outlawing all guns was not the same thing as an indication of the intention to eventually outlaw all guns, I called in and said so, for the first time ever. Seeking a balance between legalizing all weapons and outlawing all weapons was not the same thing as this ominous threat to our freedoms that he was portraying it to be. In the same way, there must be some authority in any society, and it is always possible for even the society that most advocates open-mindedness to have too little authority and to have to move towards being a cult in order to have the optimal amount. I wonder how many fewer members the Catholic Church would have if it emulated the lack of central leadership that the TS has. I do not consider it to be a coincidence that the peak membership of the TS was immediately before Annie Besant's death. We need strong leaders like her. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 04:52:28 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The Virtue of Prejudice Message-ID: <330004e2.44779803@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> No matter how sincerely someone intends to judge individuals on their own merits, there is always a time lag in gathering this information. In the meantime, tentative probability estimates of the behavior of individuals based on group behavior are better than nothing. It would take omniscience to not have any prejudices. It is just as important to realize they are inevitable as it is to acquire the information necessary to overcome them. y version of open-mindedness, I am going to try to intimidate anyone who says anything with which I disagree into not saying it. And, by the way, it sure is terrible how the TS suppresses diversity of opinion. Some people sure are hypocrites." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:30:15 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970117063015.00705ba8@mail.eden.com> At 11:32 PM 1/16/97 -0500, Tom wrote: >On Wed, 15 Jan 97, Titus Roth wrote: >being a cult in order to have the optimal amount. I wonder how many fewer >members the Catholic Church would have if it emulated the lack of central >leadership that the TS has. I do not consider it to be a coincidence that >the peak membership of the TS was immediately before Annie Besant's death. >We need strong leaders like her. Towards the end of Annie Besant's Presidency, one of the main reasons for the drop in the membership was due to Krishnaji dismantling the Order of the Star of the East after his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" declaration. After that TS never recovered as far the world wide membership is concerned. One of the primary reasons for Annie Besant's dynamism was due to the fact that she was very much involved in many activities outside of Theosophical Society and in her individual capacity. She was active in the Indian Independence Movement and was the only non-Indian woman to be elected as the President of Indian National Congress -- the leading political party fighting for Indian Independence. She was also active in building a chain of educational institutions all over India -- both at the elementary/middle/high school and also set up a University in Benares. She was also very much involved in improving the conditions of women in India -- especially encouraging the parents to educate them and not marry them off before they graduated. I believe, her valiant efforts in improving the conditions of men and women in India -- a practical application of the First Object of the Society seems to have much to do with her being able to attract membership all over the world. Of course she was an outstanding orator and TS has never seen any one of her caliber. I thought I should add my 2 cents worth of historical information for those who may not be much aware of AB's work. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:33:16 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Virtue of Prejudice Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970117063316.00702448@mail.eden.com> At 12:20 AM 1/17/97 -0500, Tom wrote: >No matter how sincerely someone intends to judge individuals on their own >merits, there is always a time lag in gathering this information. In the >meantime, tentative probability estimates of the behavior of >individuals based on group behavior are better than nothing. > Many times when I have tried to judge some one, I have later found that there were factors and reasons why that person acted in a certain manner at that time. So I try to go slow before I come up to any judgement on anyone. This is my experience for whatever is worth. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR aka Doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 17 01:32:49 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: PI in the SKI digest 832 Message-ID: <199701170632.BAA21942@envirolink.org> Robert Word writes: >> From: John Straughn >> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >> >How about a mathematics in which we begin with "PI equals ONE." >> > >> >Could be fun ... >> > >> >Burble burble burble .... > >I gather that you are not a mathematician. I gather that you are not a pi-diatrician. >> You mean it doesn't? >> >> Blubber blubber blubber > >I gather that you are not a mathematician. Actually, no, I'm not. But I do have a nice set of penny loafers which qualify me to be invulnerable to any statement concerning the well-being of my fellow vegetables and excludes me from any responsibility of providing for any carrot that has not been formally boiled. But only on Mondays that fall on April 31st. And really long days. (the ones that are longer than 24 hours.) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:45:54 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970117064554.006cfc70@mail.eden.com> At 10:24 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >At 09:28 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >>M K Ramadoss wrote: >>> >>> Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts >>> does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers >>> representing the parties. >>> >>> Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the >>> meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to >>> access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better >>> understanding. >> >> There was a lot of material sent to the Lodges explaining the >>situation. I cannot post it publicly, but, if it was placed in the >>minutes of the Board of Directors of your Lodge (as it was with mine), >>then you should have a right (depending on the laws of Texas; certainly >>by New York law) to examine those minutes as a member of your Lodge. >>Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board meetings at >>Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do your research for >>you (meaning that you would probably have to physically go there to >>examine their minutes). >> >> Bart Lidofsky > >Here in San Antonio, the lodge has a small membership and we all have known >each other for several years and I am not sure if any material was received >here. Usually the business matters are paid very little attention here. Let >me check with some of my friends who have held offices at that time. Thanks >for the information. > >MKR > Hi, here is an update. I was at the Lodge meeting this evening and showed the msg to one of the officers who held the office of the President and other offices during the time the Boston Litigation was in progress. He told me that he has not seen any details except for a request that came for moral support for the position taken by the group which was the Plaintiff. It appears that most lodges have not received the information that NY Lodge received. MKR > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 17 01:44:56 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Superiority?? Message-ID: <199701170644.BAA22575@envirolink.org> Jerry Schueler writes: >Tom: >>How can there be differences without there being superiorities? > >Is cold superior to hot? Is big superior to little? >Is up superior to down? Both sides of any duality are >equally important, and superiority is very relative. >Same with male and female or with masculinity and >femininity. The heads of a coin is different from >the tails, but one is hardly superior to the other. > >Jerry S. >Member, TI There is only one answer to this. I've said a million times (well, maybe not that many) and I'll say it again. The answer is yes. RELATIVELY. This applies to all of the above examples. So, in other words, Jerry is totally correct. And I'm not going to be a nice guy and say "IMO" because I've recently been threatened by a severe boiling and I'm not happy about it. I've spoken to my divine allies, the hairless purple bunnies, who are now awaiting the arrival of Hale-Bopp, (which they refer to as "Hail Bob" due to an incorrect divine message sent by, guess who? none other than hermes). And because of this they are very pre-occupied with their goal to reach nirvana through "Bob". Anyhow, they were very unhappy with the fact that I interrupted them and have asked me to kindly pass this message onto everyone I come in contact with. "There will NOT be free cups of coffee at the translocation terminals if they get there first and if you don't stop arguing about your agreements they will break out the holy hand grenades." Oh, yes, that's right. They also told me that the statement I made regarding to this post and the examples it presented were precisely correct, and that anyone that had anything contradictory to say about it would find themselves in a heck of a mess once the dung beetles caught on to the whole fiasco. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 05:13:22 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Superiority?? Message-ID: <330406a9.45234966@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 17 Jan 97 04:29:42 +0000, Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom: >>How can there be differences without there being superiorities? >Is cold superior to hot? It depends on the situation. In every situation, there is an optimal temperature. When the actual temperature is higher than the optimal temperature, cold is superior to hot. >Is big superior to little? >Is up superior to down? They similarly depend on the situation. But in the abstract, I agree. >Both sides of any duality are >equally important, and superiority is very relative. Regarding the potential of men and women, I agree. But I was referring to actual skills, to which uniqueness applies, so that there must be superiority and inferiority. >Same with male and female or with masculinity and >femininity. Even though it is a general impression and is predominantly theoretical, I agree with your conclusion that masculinity and femininity, taken as wholes, are equal. But that they are not identical means that, in the ways in which they differ, and depending on the situation, one will be superior to the other. >The heads of a coin is different from >the tails, but one is hardly superior to the other. It depends on which side you have bet. And tails is prettier. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 02:01:33 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: Alan: >>You can boil carrots ..... >> >>Alan > >You don't like me very much, do you...:) >--- >The Triaist > How can I NOT like someone who wants to be turned into a carrot? Maybe it's about time to change into something else that can't be boiled. Recent posts suggest there is a vacancy for the job as God. Maybe you could apply for that? I like you well enough. Oh yes. Alan :-) {Big friendly smile} Thoa: Ditto. I was getting some soil to plant you, water you, give you some sun... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:00:21 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Triaist Man's Measurement Message-ID: <199701171512.KAA22742@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Thoa Tran > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Triaist Man's Measurement > Date: Friday, January 17, 1997 4:04 AM > > Alan: > >>You can boil carrots ..... > >> > >>Alan > > > >You don't like me very much, do you...:) > >--- > >The Triaist > > > How can I NOT like someone who wants to be turned into a carrot? > > Maybe it's about time to change into something else that can't be > boiled. Recent posts suggest there is a vacancy for the job as God. > Maybe you could apply for that? > > I like you well enough. > > Oh yes. > > Alan :-) {Big friendly smile} > > > Thoa: > Ditto. I was getting some soil to plant you, water you, give you some sun... > And after you're sliced and boiled, some butter and a dash of mint. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:43:09 +0100 From: Michael Subject: K.& the Rajagopals Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970117174309.0068de8c@xs4all.nl> Mark wrote: >MKR wrote: >>There is a new book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and The >>Rajagopals". As Krishnamurti lived in Adyar for several years and as many >>consider him to be a very keen observer, there are two quotes in the above >>book which I think might interest some here: >> I read before about this book and made a search on British bookfinding engines, but without avail. Can any more particulars be given? Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:58:30 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Alice Bailey - What attracts people to her writings? Message-ID: <330cad87.87952061@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 17 Jan 97 04:31:42 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: >? Doss: With this and two other messages of yours (and one of mine, for that matter, to which you responded, so the problem is probably with my server) I received the header to the article, but no body. I would like to read them. Could you either re-post, or, if you believe that this only happened with me, privately send me, copies of your articles about Alice Bailey, Prejudice, and the Boston Lodge? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:31:41 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <199701171926.OAA14353@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > This is analogous to why I have the exact opposite opinion of why the TS is > in decline from those who think it has suppressed the truth too much. Up > to a certain level of development, fixed rules are better than an > open-minded intuitive approach, just as, for an individual with a broken > leg, crutches are better than trying to walk without them. Without going > through the dogmatic stage, the intuitive stage could not be reached. The > TS should be more like a cult. Actually, I believe John Straughn is moving towards this realization and will begin recruiting members for his cult in the next 24 hours. It will be called the THeosophical Carrot Cult. TCC, a natural with vegetarians around the globe, will also have the added advantage of being affiliated with the Church of the Subgenius, rather than the LCC, and take all those who truly worship "Bob" on the saucer trip in 1998. Boiling will be optional, but for those who decide to take this rigorous course, enlightenment is guaranteed. The butter ceremony will commence immediately after scraping and boiling. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 17 15:01:13 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Posts: Headers, no content Message-ID: <199701172001.PAA27365@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Fri, 17 Jan 97 04:31:42 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > >>? > >Doss: > >With this and two other messages of yours (and one of mine, for that >matter, to which you responded, so the problem is probably with my server) >I received the header to the article, but no body. I would like to read >them. Could you either re-post, or, if you believe that this only happened >with me, privately send me, copies of your articles about Alice Bailey, >Prejudice, and the Boston Lodge? I noticed the same. And it happened to me once last night too. It is strange, because I sent two messages last night within, oh, five minutes of each other and one came through and one only had the header (PI in the SKI had only the header, which is very unfortunate because it had some very important information in it.) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 17 15:10:20 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <199701172010.PAA28524@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >> From: Tom Robertson >> This is analogous to why I have the exact opposite opinion of why the TS is >> in decline from those who think it has suppressed the truth too much. Up >> to a certain level of development, fixed rules are better than an >> open-minded intuitive approach, just as, for an individual with a broken >> leg, crutches are better than trying to walk without them. Without going >> through the dogmatic stage, the intuitive stage could not be reached. The >> TS should be more like a cult. >Actually, I believe John Straughn is moving towards this realization and >will beginrecruiting members for his cult in the next 24 hours. It will be >called theTHeosophical Carrot Cult. TCC, a natural with vegetarians around >the globe,will also have the added advantage of being affiliated with the >Church ofthe Subgenius, rather than the LCC, and take all those who truly >worship"Bob" on the saucer trip in 1998. > >Boiling will be optional, but for those who decide to take this >rigorous course, enlightenment is guaranteed. The butter ceremony >will commence immediately after scraping and boiling. > >-AEB "For us its harvest time my friends, but for them, ...its the holocaust. It's the CRY OF THE CARROTS!!!" published by "Tool" written by (Doh!) the cannibal guy. Anyhow, Ann, you are only partly correct. Did you get my entire message regarding "PI in the SKI" and the hairless purple bunnies? I only recieved the header of the post. I was hoping that did not go for everyone. That information could be very useful at a future date. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:30:39 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Alice Bailey - What attracts people to her writings? Message-ID: Tom: I also got a couple of msgs with just the header and I have forwarded them to JEM for investigation. I think that there is some software problem at the listserver. I will repost the msgs. _______________________________________________________ Peace to all living beings. M K Ramadoss On Fri, 17 Jan 1997, Tom Robertson wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 97 04:31:42 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: > > >? > > Doss: > > With this and two other messages of yours (and one of mine, for that > matter, to which you responded, so the problem is probably with my server) > I received the header to the article, but no body. I would like to read > them. Could you either re-post, or, if you believe that this only happened > with me, privately send me, copies of your articles about Alice Bailey, > Prejudice, and the Boston Lodge? > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:59:34 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: A Horse Is a Horse, of Course, of Course Message-ID: <970117175933_912949522@emout13.mail.aol.com> Tom Robertson writes--> If I said "men are stronger then women," if JRC said "you're an idiot," and if I responded by looking elsewhere for objective discussion, I fail to see how I have incorporated self. Richard Ihle writes--> Sometimes it might not matter to JRC whether you said "men are stronger than women" or "women are stronger than men." Truth or error of your statements is often probably not the main issue with him at all. The crucial issue may sometimes arise when he sees that you are trying to use ideas/logic/arguments/etc. to gain egoic ascendancy over him and others. Psychogenetically speaking, there is a big difference between a person who ~has~ an idea and a person who egoically ~is~ an idea. It has been my observation that JRC usually gives a lot of latitude to the former type but sometimes nails the latter type, especially if the person shows no sign that he or she is aware of his or her egoic crystalizations. When JRC merely sees an idea on the field of battle, he responds in one way; when he sees an ineluctable ~I AM my idea~ out there, he often responds in a different way. Does JRC ~always~ do this with altruistic intent (i.e., to help the other person become more Self-aware--or at least, by means of "mirroring," become aware of the "negative energies" etc. they are utilizing)? Perhaps. Another possibility, of course, is that sometimes he, like you, might simply not be in the mood to let others even be remotely deluded that they are his egoic superordinates on any level. Whatever the situation, it seems clear that JRC sometimes sees you as needing an "existential" lesson. In the past, he has sometimes seemed to think Eldon needed one as well; however, Eldon's "case," in my opinion, is quite a bit different from yours. Eldon, at least to my knowledge, has never even come close to openly suggesting that he believes that his Fundamental Identity ~really is~, to any extent at all, the ideas he has on various subjects. On the other hand, you almost say so. I could be wrong about this, but take another look at the exchange you had with JHE: Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes--> >>the people who don't agree with the thesis in your book [Paul's] are no better or worse than the people who do agree with your thesis. Tom Roberson writes--> >Those who are right about it, to that extent, are better than those who are wrong about it. RI (cont.)--> Do you really think that one can actually be ~better~ than someone else merely by having a better idea? Now, this might be true if looked at in a certain way; however, one cannot blame JRC and the other P.P. (Psychogenetic Police) for being suspicious about the statement. Indeed, doesn't it sort of sound like you are speaking from the perspective of someone who has not yet discovered, by means of meditation or otherwise, that his or her own physical-, emotional-, and mental-"people" are illusory when contrasted to the Real Person behind the scenes? Just as a person with an perfect new Lincoln is not ~fundamentally~ any better than a person with an imperfect old Lincoln (mine), neither in the Psychogentic view is a person with a valid idea any "better" than one with an invalid one. Just as a person cannot be a car, neither can a person be an idea--except as an egoic delusion. >From the Psychogenetic view, then, it would be much more preferable ~to have~ a bad idea but be able to maintain the Once-Removed Vantage upon it than it would be ~to 100% BECOME~ a good idea. What do you think? Feel free to attack these ideas I once ~had~ . . . because ~I'm~ leaving. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:25:16 -0800 From: Robert Word Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 834 Message-ID: <32E00A5C.1F2B@TIW.COM> > > Date: Fri Jan 17 01:32:49 1997 > From: John Straughn > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: Re: PI in the SKI digest 832 > Message-ID: <199701170632.BAA21942@envirolink.org> > > Robert Word writes: > >> From: John Straughn > >> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: > >> >How about a mathematics in which we begin with "PI equals ONE." Let C sub theta be the operation of rotating a planar object about the origin counterclockwise by theta radians. Then (C sub PI) * (C sub PI) = 1. Hence (C sub PI) is a root of unity, since rotating any object by 2*pi radians will return the object. Now (C sub theta) could be realized in n X n matrices, but if we suppose C sub theta is realized in real numbers, then we are forced to the conclusion C sub pi = -1, since C sub pi is not the identity. Now Dr. Bain, this is not the same as your equation Pi = 1, but at least its not far off. However, your equation applies in the trivial universe. By the trivial universe, I mean a number system in which every element is the identity element (i.e., there is only ONE THING). With this hypothesis, we may quickly draw the conclusion Pi = 1. Now Dr. Bain, I have a little problem for you. Let us go back to real numbers (and pi = 3.1415926...), and generalize the concept of "integer" to mean the class of numbers of the form a + b*pi + c*(pi squared) + d*(pi cubed) + ... to a finite number of terms, where each of a,b,c... are rational numbers. In this class of generalized integers, does the fundamental theorem of arithmetic hold true? If not, can you find an exception to the fundamental theorem? Please demonstrate by an example. > >> > > >> >Could be fun ... > >> > > >> >Burble burble burble .... > > > >I gather that you are not a mathematician. > I gather that you are not a pi-diatrician. Yes, but I might be a kind of mathematician. > >> You mean it doesn't? > >> > >> Blubber blubber blubber > > > >I gather that you are not a mathematician. > --- > The Triaist > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:56:48 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 834 Message-ID: In message <32E00A5C.1F2B@TIW.COM>, Robert Word writes >Now Dr. Bain, I have a little problem for you. Let us go back to real >numbers (and pi = 3.1415926...), and generalize the concept of "integer" >to mean the class of numbers of the form > >a + b*pi + c*(pi squared) + d*(pi cubed) + ... to a finite number of >terms, where each of a,b,c... are rational numbers. > >In this class of generalized integers, does the fundamental theorem of >arithmetic hold true? If not, can you find an exception to the >fundamental theorem? Please demonstrate by an example. Listen, I only wondered! Didn't say I knew any answers! Try the hairless purple bunnies. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:04:34 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: THEOS-L digest 829 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118020434.00683804@mail.eden.com> <<Just to clarify something. I didn't send anything on Bing Escuedero. I don't <<<>even know who he is! Please enlighten. <<<> <<<>Ben <<<> <<<> <<<> Hi, did anyone imply or say that you sent anything on Bing Escudero? If so please re-post the msg for all of us to see. Sometimes, when quotes and re-requotes end up in a confusion leading to wrong quotes being attributed to wrong writer/poster. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:05:32 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118020532.00681500@mail.eden.com> <<m.k. ramadoss wrote: <<<>> <<<>> BTW, in all the traffic, the is nothing from any responsible elected >> National Official of TSA, just for the information of the newbees. > > There is no need. It's all in the public record, in the courts of >Boston. Anybody who REALLY cares can look it up there, and find out ALL >the facts, including how much money the lawyers got. Of course, then >they'll have to make up something else new. > > Bart Lidofsky > >P.S. Here's a hint: the concern was not about members studying Alice >Bailey, but of the members changing the Lodge into an Alice Bailey >group, and transferring the property out of the TS and into one of the >Alice Bailey organizations. > Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers representing the parties. Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better understanding. MKRamadoss TSA Member, San Antonio TX Lodge From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:06:27 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: Women & Enlightenment Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118020627.0069df24@mail.eden.com> <<M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> Here is URL which has some very interesting material. BTW, the whole >> print issue on the subject is on line. > > Andrew Cohen used to be a really nice guy, but I think that he's >beginning to buy his own hype. > > Bart Lidofsky There was one recent issue where several wellknown women were written up and I thought it was a well done issue. When I posted a msg in one of the usenet groups, I had several requests trying to locate the magazine. I actually bought a copy of the magazine which later I gave it a friend who was very interested. This issue has been scanned and is on-line. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:07:17 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118020717.006abb58@mail.eden.com> <<M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts >> does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers >> representing the parties. >> >> Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the >> meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to >> access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better >> understanding. > > There was a lot of material sent to the Lodges explaining the >situation. I cannot post it publicly, but, if it was placed in the >minutes of the Board of Directors of your Lodge (as it was with mine), >then you should have a right (depending on the laws of Texas; certainly >by New York law) to examine those minutes as a member of your Lodge. >Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board meetings at >Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do your research for >you (meaning that you would probably have to physically go there to >examine their minutes). > > Bart Lidofsky Here in San Antonio, the lodge has a small membership and we all have known each other for several years and I am not sure if any material was received here. Usually the business matters are paid very little attention here. Let me check with some of my friends who have held offices at that time. Thanks for the information. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:07:54 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: Women & Enlightenment Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118020754.006af50c@mail.eden.com> <<M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >> Here is URL which has some very interesting material. BTW, the whole >> print issue on the subject is on line. > > Andrew Cohen used to be a really nice guy, but I think that he's >beginning to buy his own hype. > > Bart Lidofsky > In a recent issue there was a very good article on Vimla Thakar in which she describes a very important meeting with Jiddu Krishnamurti which changed the direction of her life. Here is an interesting excerpt: "Putting Bombs under all old people who follow the wrong line?" ========================== Vimala went to meet Krishnamurti in Benares in December 1961. He asked her what she had been doing and she told him that she spent most of her time speaking with friends who were interested in her life. "That is quite natural," he replied. "But why don't you explode? Why don't you put bombs under all these old people who follow the wrong line? Why don't you go around India? Is anyone doing this? If there were half a dozen, I would not say a word to you. There is none. . . . There is so much to do. There is no time. . . . Go - shout from the house tops, 'You are on the wrong track! This is not the way to peace!'. . . Go out and set them on fire! There is none who is doing this. Not even one. . . . What are you waiting for?" This conversation shook her to the core, but she also felt that "putting bombs under people" was not the whole story. Surely, she felt, one must also show people the right line of action and point out the way to rebuild the house. Further talks with him convinced her, and dispelled ideas which she saw were holding her back - for example, the idea that she should have her own language before starting to speak publicly - and also her fear of making mistakes. This was a pivotal moment, and in her words, "the burning ashes became aflame." >From this point on she started traveling and addressing meetings in various countries in Europe to which she was invited. She soon encountered opposition both from those who did not like the fact that she spoke on her own authority and not as Krishnamurti's messenger and from those who accused her of plagiarism. Krishnamurti was supportive: "I know the whole game. They have played it on me. They want authority. Is not the world sick? I was afraid you would have to go through it. I was hoping that you wouldn't have to. . . . It is not easy to stand up alone. It is extremely difficult. And yet the world needs such sannyasins, true Brahmins who would stand up alone, who would stand up for truth. You know if I had money I would give it to you. But I have none. I go everywhere as a guest - I have not even a place of my own." After this she met with Krishnamurti now and then, but she felt the need to spend time with him was finished, "as you only want to meet a person who is away from you." Since 1962 she has felt Krishnamurti's presence within her. >From then on she spent her life traveling all over the world giving talks, teaching wherever she was invited, up until 1991, when she decided to remain in one place. ================================== MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:08:48 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Alice Bailey - What attracts people to her writings? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118020848.0068bbfc@mail.eden.com> R__________R Murray wrote: Whatever the intellectual components to the Boston situation, I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but there is truth in other dimensions too - emotional and subjective, for instance. In the 30 or so years I've been in the TS, the Bailey question has been one of the biggest dividing factors. The bitterest fights in the NZ TS scene have been underpinned by distrust of versus loyalty to Alice Bailey, with people in the E.S. usually being distrustful of her, in my experience. I do not know much about Alice Bailey's philosophy and I am curious to find out what it is that attracts individuals as well as loyalty to her. May be some one who has a first hand understanding/experience in observing what has been going on, it would be in interesting to get a feedback. Such feedback also can throw light on the drawbacks of the other philosophies - HPB, Judge, AB, CWL, GSA, CJ etc. etc. When the issues are very clearly understood, all distrust and all the fall outs of it will be gone, hopefully. True searchers of Truth, will be loyal to Truth and Truth along and will not follow any particular personality. After all all of us are students searching for Truth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:09:35 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118020935.006a1334@mail.eden.com> << <<<<>M K Ramadoss wrote: <<<<>> >>As far as the cancellation of charters in Canada and Denmark >>etc. no one who has first hand access to the information has >>come forth and explained why the charter was canceled. >>Cancellation of a National Section Charter is not a simple or >>easy decision at the highest level, especially at a time the >> membership world wide is perhaps at its lowest and perhaps >>shrinking. So there should be some valid and strong reasons. The >>questions is what is preventing anyone who knows full facts to >>come out with details. >> >> Again why the secrecy? What or who is/are being protected? > > >JHE >Doss, what specific questions do you feel have not yet been >answered concerning the expulsions of the Canadian and Danish >sections? Please list them. Maybe we can find the answers. > Question is very simple. What is *the* real reason for expulsions? Not the simplistic legal or other reasons usually given (or not given) for public consumption. When cancellation/expulsion is done, I believe *no* reason or *justification* is required to be given. I will give you an example. I believe when Adyar group sued (I believe the Danish Section for recovery of assets) and lost, the allegation by Adyar attorneys was that there was some question about the appropriation/misappropriation of funds, while everyone knew that the key members in the Section were all extremely honest and spotless in their reputation and would not misuse even a single penny. So the real reason is not what is seen in public domain papers. >Cancellation of a National Section Charter is a decision made by >the International President with the approval of the General >Council. However, I have never heard of the General Council >opposing any decision of the President. Considering the fact >that Radha has canceled the charters of three sections since she >has become president, I would suggest that such cancellations are >indeed a "simple or easy decision at the highest level" (at least >for Radha) regardless of whether the worldwide membership is >shrinking or not. > While this may be true in general, I am aware of an instance in which when Annie Besant was at the height of popularity and power, her suggestion to modify the Object of TS was turned down by the General Council. > >Bart Lidofsky writes: > >>There WAS an official explanation of Canada: According to >>Canadian law, the Canadian section lost some tax breaks by being >>part of the Theosophical Society (Canadian only organizations >>got breaks which organizations that were part of an >>international organziation did not get). The Canadian section >>therefore amended its bylaws so that it no longer declared >>itself to be part of the Theosophical Society. The Theosophical >>Society therefore revoked its charter; if it allowed the >>Canadian section to keep its charter, then it would have been >>participating in a fraud. > >JHE >Your explanation seems quite different from the one Stan Trelor >published in the CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST at the time. What is the >source of your information here? > > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:11:22 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118021122.006a07b0@mail.eden.com> <<On Wed, 15 Jan 97, Titus Roth wrote: >being a cult in order to have the optimal amount. I wonder how many fewer >members the Catholic Church would have if it emulated the lack of central >leadership that the TS has. I do not consider it to be a coincidence that >the peak membership of the TS was immediately before Annie Besant's death. >We need strong leaders like her. Towards the end of Annie Besant's Presidency, one of the main reasons for the drop in the membership was due to Krishnaji dismantling the Order of the Star of the East after his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" declaration. After that TS never recovered as far the world wide membership is concerned. One of the primary reasons for Annie Besant's dynamism was due to the fact that she was very much involved in many activities outside of Theosophical Society and in her individual capacity. She was active in the Indian Independence Movement and was the only non-Indian woman to be elected as the President of Indian National Congress -- the leading political party fighting for Indian Independence. She was also active in building a chain of educational institutions all over India -- both at the elementary/middle/high school and also set up a University in Benares. She was also very much involved in improving the conditions of women in India -- especially encouraging the parents to educate them and not marry them off before they graduated. I believe, her valiant efforts in improving the conditions of men and women in India -- a practical application of the First Object of the Society seems to have much to do with her being able to attract membership all over the world. Of course she was an outstanding orator and TS has never seen any one of her caliber. I thought I should add my 2 cents worth of historical information for those who may not be much aware of AB's work. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:11:56 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: The Virtue of Prejudice Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118021156.006ad448@mail.eden.com> <<<< <<<No matter how sincerely someone intends to judge individuals on their own >merits, there is always a time lag in gathering this information. In the >meantime, tentative probability estimates of the behavior of >individuals based on group behavior are better than nothing. > Many times when I have tried to judge some one, I have later found that there were factors and reasons why that person acted in a certain manner at that time. So I try to go slow before I come up to any judgement on anyone. This is my experience for whatever is worth. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR aka Doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:22:37 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Posts: Headers, no content Message-ID: <331d0875.111229770@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 17 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>On Fri, 17 Jan 97 04:31:42 +0000, M K Ramadoss wrote: >> >>>? >> >>Doss: >> >>With this and two other messages of yours (and one of mine, for that >>matter, to which you responded, so the problem is probably with my server) >>I received the header to the article, but no body. I would like to read >>them. Could you either re-post, or, if you believe that this only happened >>with me, privately send me, copies of your articles about Alice Bailey, >>Prejudice, and the Boston Lodge? > >I noticed the same. And it happened to me once last night too. It is >strange, because I sent two messages last night within, oh, five minutes of >each other and one came through and one only had the header (PI in the >SKI had only the header, which is very unfortunate because it had some >very important information in it.) If that is the one about Monday, April 31, I got it. But I would have used another word besides "important" to describe the information contained in it. "Vital" and "indispensable" come to mind. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:12:33 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Alice Bailey - What attracts people to her writings? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118021233.0069f564@mail.eden.com> <<<<<< Murray wrote: Whatever the intellectual components to the Boston situation, I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but there is truth in other dimensions too - emotional and subjective, for instance. In the 30 or so years I've been in the TS, the Bailey question has been one of the biggest dividing factors. The bitterest fights in the NZ TS scene have been underpinned by distrust of versus loyalty to Alice Bailey, with people in the E.S. usually being distrustful of her, in my experience. I do not know much about Alice Bailey's philosophy and I am curious to find out what it is that attracts individuals as well as loyalty to her. May be some one who has a first hand understanding/experience in observing what has been going on, it would be in interesting to get a feedback. Such feedback also can throw light on the drawbacks of the other philosophies - HPB, Judge, AB, CWL, GSA, CJ etc. etc. When the issues are very clearly understood, all distrust and all the fall outs of it will be gone, hopefully. True searchers of Truth, will be loyal to Truth and Truth along and will not follow any particular personality. After all all of us are students searching for Truth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:13:39 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970118021339.006a0fa0@mail.eden.com> <<<<< <<<<< <<<At 09:28 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >>M K Ramadoss wrote: >>> >>> Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts >>> does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers >>> representing the parties. >>> >>> Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the >>> meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to >>> access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better >>> understanding. >> >> There was a lot of material sent to the Lodges explaining the >>situation. I cannot post it publicly, but, if it was placed in the >>minutes of the Board of Directors of your Lodge (as it was with mine), >>then you should have a right (depending on the laws of Texas; certainly >>by New York law) to examine those minutes as a member of your Lodge. >>Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board meetings at >>Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do your research for >>you (meaning that you would probably have to physically go there to >>examine their minutes). >> >> Bart Lidofsky > >Here in San Antonio, the lodge has a small membership and we all have known >each other for several years and I am not sure if any material was received >here. Usually the business matters are paid very little attention here. Let >me check with some of my friends who have held offices at that time. Thanks >for the information. > >MKR > Hi, here is an update. I was at the Lodge meeting this evening and showed the msg to one of the officers who held the office of the President and other offices during the time the Boston Litigation was in progress. He told me that he has not seen any details except for a request that came for moral support for the position taken by the group which was the Plaintiff. It appears that most lodges have not received the information that NY Lodge received. MKR > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 17 21:51:59 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Posts: Headers, no content Message-ID: <199701180251.VAA06683@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >On Fri, 17 Jan 97, John Straughn wrote: >>I noticed the same. And it happened to me once last night too. It is >>strange, because I sent two messages last night within, oh, five minutes of >>each other and one came through and one only had the header (PI in the >SKI >had only the header, which is very unfortunate because it had some >very >important information in it.) >If that is the one about Monday, April 31, I >got it. But I would have usedanother word besides "important" to describe >the information contained init. "Vital" and "indispensable" come to mind. No this was posted just a few days ago...(1/14-15?). It had to do with the comet hale-bopp and its worshipping hpb's. (Not to be confused with HPB) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 01:04:08 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: A Horse Is a Horse, of Course, of Course Message-ID: <33201a8c.115861211@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Fri, 17 Jan 97, Richard Ihle wrote: >Sometimes it might not matter to JRC whether you said "men are stronger >than women" or "women are stronger than men." Truth or error of your >statements is often probably not the main issue with him at all. The crucial >issue may sometimes arise when he sees that you are trying to use >ideas/logic/arguments/etc. to gain egoic ascendancy over him and others. Truth should have ascendancy over falsehood. You seem to be implying that objective truth does not matter. >Psychogenetically speaking, there is a big difference between a person who >~has~ an idea and a person who egoically ~is~ an idea. Maybe the word "objectivity" is what you mean. One who can be detached from his or her ideas and be willing to change them if better ones come along is objective. JRC has confused ideas with which he disagrees with a lack of objectivity. He arrogantly, hypocritically, closed-mindedly assumes that no one could sincerely and objectively arrive at conclusions which radically disagree with his. >It has been my >observation that JRC usually gives a lot of latitude to the former type but >sometimes nails the latter type, especially if the person shows no sign that >he or she is aware of his or her egoic crystalizations. I cannot think of anything more obvious than that JRC totally lacks objectivity, is completely attached to his ideas, and would never consider changing them if someone else pointed out how he was wrong. In the name of objectivity, he is, by his own admission, trying to intimidate those who disagree with him into shutting up, while at the same time saying how terrible it is that the TS "suppresses" diversity of opinion. I have never seen such blatant hypocrisy. When JRC takes a statement of mine with which he _agrees_ and criticizes me for my lack of objectivity, then, and only then, will the idea that he is not being hypocritical have any credibility. How soon do you see that happening? >Does JRC ~always~ do this with altruistic intent (i.e., to help the other >person become more Self-aware--or at least, by means of "mirroring," >become aware of the "negative energies" etc. they are utilizing)? Perhaps. Altruistic intent? That's funny! The way he consistently mischaracterizes what I say destroys this theory. Altruism and deceit do not often mix. When I think of an altruist, I think of a kind person who, no matter how wonderful is what he or she has to say, is always willing to quit his or her "mission" if it is as obviously unwelcome and destructive as JRC's is. When I think of an arrogant fundamentalist who is bound and determined to beat people over the head with what they KNOW to be the truth and tell them to "turn or burn," I think of JRC. >Another >possibility, of course, is that sometimes he, like you, might simply not be >in the mood to let others even be remotely deluded that they are his egoic >superordinates on any level. That's conceivable. >Whatever the situation, it seems clear that JRC sometimes sees you as >needing an "existential" lesson. I'd love to teach him a few lessons, too. Maybe he will come to think of me as his greatest "spiritual ally" someday. I doubt that's possible through the Internet, though, as I see no sign of his considering of the possibility of what I say being true. >In the past, he has sometimes seemed to think Eldon >needed one as well; however, Eldon's "case," in my opinion, is quite a bit >different from yours. Eldon, at least to my knowledge, has never even come >close to openly suggesting that he believes that his Fundamental Identity >~really is~, to any extent at all, the ideas he has on various subjects. On >the other hand, you almost say so. I could be wrong about this, but take >another look at the exchange you had with JHE: > >Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes--> >>>the people who don't agree with the thesis in your book [Paul's] are no >better or worse than the people who do agree with your thesis. >Tom Roberson writes--> >>Those who are right about it, to that extent, are better than those who are >wrong about it. > >RI (cont.)--> >Do you really think that one can actually be ~better~ than someone else >merely by having a better idea? Now, this might be true if looked at in a >certain way; however, one cannot blame JRC and the other P.P. >(Psychogenetic Police) for being suspicious about the statement. I will be happy to blame them for making a shambles of the idea of objective truth. You are implying that whether or not the thesis in Paul's book is true does not matter. I am saying it does. I love truth. The one who says that objective truth does not matter does not. >Indeed, doesn't it sort of sound like you are speaking from the perspective >of someone who has not yet discovered, by means of meditation or >otherwise, that his or her own physical-, emotional-, and mental-"people" >are illusory when contrasted to the Real Person behind the scenes? It sounds like you are saying that the "Real Person" behind the scenes is totally separate from expressed ideas. I know of no such "Real Person." But regardless, if you are suggesting that it is due to JRC's superior insight into the illusoriness of the individual that he is being an admitted cyber-thug, then I'm afraid we have two VERY different ideas about spiritual growth. >Just as a person with an perfect new >Lincoln is not ~fundamentally~ any better than a person with an imperfect >old Lincoln (mine), neither in the Psychogentic view is a person with a valid >idea any "better" than one with an invalid one. I am completely missing what you are saying, if you are saying that it applies to me. All I have said is that truth is better than falsehood. For anyone who believes that objective truth is irrelevant, as you are implying, what meaning would "seeking truth" have? If anything, I would say that those, such as JRC and Alexis, who cannot disagree with someone else without personally attacking them, are the ones who have identified their ideas with their "Real Persons," not those who dispassionately and straightforwardly say what they think, without getting personal. When Alexis was involved on this list, did he and JRC try to be each other's "spiritual allies" (as they both are in such dire need of), or did they just agree with each other, and therefore put their "mission" on hold? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:06:16 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <199701170806.AAA24982@palrel1.hp.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > The TS should be more like a cult. In arriving at the optimal balance, > destructive extremes must be moved toward. [Cringe] Tom, Though I think your minority opinions have a certain admirable passion to them and compensate some one-sided attitudes prevalent today, I have to say this is going too far. Having come from a pure and good teaching that became a cult after the founder died, the words cult and extreme produce a literal gut reaction in me. I have personally seen and heard too many horror stories of the damage cults have done. Even more stomach wrenching for me than the damage done to members is the desecration and twisting of pure truths. > I do not consider it to be a coincidence that the peak membership of the TS > was immediately before Annie Besant's death. We need strong leaders like > her. If leaders are selfless and good, then being strong is an asset. Even strong leadership, however, should be as a scaffolding to erect strong members and then taken down. Otherwise the group follows the demise we have witnessed over and over in religions: one to three generations after the avatar has come, his or her teachings are made of no effect. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:42:19 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: horses of courses Message-ID: <199701180456.XAA05503@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >I will be happy to blame them for making a shambles of the idea of >objective truth. You are implying that whether or not the thesis in Paul's >book is true does not matter. I am saying it does. I love truth. The one >who says that objective truth does not matter does not. Dear Tom, do you believe that an Arab who lives in a polygamous culture, and thus has a number of wives is immoral? According to your objective truth he is. But is he? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:58:48 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: A Horse Is a Horse, of Course, of Course Message-ID: <970117235847_1109990915@emout13.mail.aol.com> Tom Roberson writes--> When Alexis was involved on this list, did he and JRC try to be each other's "spiritual allies" (as they both are in such dire need of), or did they just agree with each other, and therefore put their "mission" on hold? Richard Ihle writes--> As I remember it, they got along fine. I hate to say it, but I think I might have been the "last straw" which moved Alexis off theos-l for a while. (There was a thing called "The Hierarchy of Threat"--a play on JHE's "choose your ~thread~" typo which Alexis apparently didn't like my saying he was at the top of.) Actually, I am sort of hoping Alexis shows up again somewhere down the line. He was one hell of a smart, interesting guy, in my opinion, and it took every last scintilla of my fledgling adept abilities not to be egoically embrangled by him every day. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 04:38:21 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <33224e69.129138231@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 18 Jan 97, Titus Roth wrote: >Having come from a pure and good teaching that became a cult >after the founder died, the words cult and extreme produce a literal gut >reaction in me. I have personally seen and heard too many horror stories of >the damage cults have done. I agree. Cults can be very destructive. If the human race were populated by only men or only women, that would be destructive, too. If there were 2 billion women on earth and 3 men, the optimal balance in terms of maximizing the probability of the survival of the human race would be to head in the direction of an all-male race. Either extreme is the worst, but what makes extremes possible is that what makes them up is part of the optimal balance. The only difference between balance and an extreme is the degree of the mixture of the opposites. Complete open-mindedness, with no distinction between ideas, would be just as destructive to a society as would complete authority and dogmatism be. Gun-shyness, which the term "gut reaction" suggests to me, in making sure that one extreme is avoided, generally results in the opposite extreme being too closely approached. It is often said of the Holocaust that it should happen "never again." But what does that mean? It certainly couldn't mean that those who say it need to remember the Holocaust in order to not commit one themselves. It means that it should be remembered in order to prevent others from committing another one. The only way I can think of doing this is to forcibly prevent those who might commit one from committing one. But, past a certain degree of certainty, the only way to prevent certain people in power from committing mass murder is to mass murder them, thus, by trying to be too sure of avoiding one extreme, causing the same kind of destruction by going to the other extreme. HPB made many dogmatic statements. Having a society with no authority is impossible. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 05:53:33 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: horses of courses Message-ID: <3323641a.134690984@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sat, 18 Jan 97, liesel f. deutsch wrote: >>I will be happy to blame them for making a shambles of the idea of >>objective truth. You are implying that whether or not the thesis in Paul's >>book is true does not matter. I am saying it does. I love truth. The one >>who says that objective truth does not matter does not. > >Dear Tom, > >do you believe that an Arab who lives in a polygamous culture, and thus has >a number of wives is immoral? According to your objective truth he is. He is? I do not see the connection between what you mean by my objective truth and polygamy. "Your objective truth" is an oxymoron. Objective truth does not depend on any subject's perception of it to be true. >But is he? I don't see why he would be. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 01:40:43 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Re JHE Book Requests Message-ID: <9701180940.AA28376@toto.csustan.edu> RI >Not very much to go on, I'm afraid. However, I would appreciate >leads from anyone on this. > >There is more hope for my second selection: Jerry, do you have >any copies of THE TALKING IMAGE OF URUR by Franz Harmann? JHE No clue on the first one. The second is very scarce. I've seen it only once in the last thirty years. But I'm willing to copy this book for you. Please see my other post. Thanks ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 01:41:52 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Book copy offering Message-ID: <9701180941.AA26040@toto.csustan.edu> There has been much discussion and requests about the very scarce book by Ernest Wood, IS THIS THEOSOPHY? and a request for Hartmann's equally scarce THE TALKING IMAGE OF URUR. I have a copy of each in the library here, and I'm willing to make a one time offer of making xerographic copies of these books. Since they are so scarce, making copies seems to be the only way to meet the demand for them--and it is very unlikely that anyone will ever reprint them. My offer is one time, because copying books weakens the bindings, and my copy of IS THIS THEOSOPHY is already in very poor condition. The cost is $20.00 each. That includes postage. The books are over 300 pages, so that really comes to less than .10 per page. The copy will come to you as 8 1/2 X 11 unbound sheets, each printed with two pages on one side. Please contact me over the next three days if you are interested, so that I can make all of the copies at once. I'm willing to consider making copies of other scarce and rare books, if there is sufficient demand for them, and they are not protected by copyright. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:03:31 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Reincarnation Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970118100331.0069c76c@xs4all.nl> Alan wrote: > If you can >accept that you partake of the eternal in some way, then you persist beyond >all graves. Some,(Gurdjieff, Don Juan), have it that many of us do not partake in a more-dimensional reality and are therefore bound to perish after death. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:08:56 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: <199701181341.IAA08166@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: John Straughn > > Ann E. Bermingham writes: > >> From: Tom Robertson > >> This is analogous to why I have the exact opposite opinion of why the TS is > >> in decline from those who think it has suppressed the truth too much. Up > >> to a certain level of development, fixed rules are better than an > >> open-minded intuitive approach, just as, for an individual with a broken > >> leg, crutches are better than trying to walk without them. Without going > >> through the dogmatic stage, the intuitive stage could not be reached. The > >> TS should be more like a cult. > > >Actually, I believe John Straughn is moving towards this realization and > >will beginrecruiting members for his cult in the next 24 hours. It will be > >called theTHeosophical Carrot Cult. TCC, a natural with vegetarians around > >the globe,will also have the added advantage of being affiliated with the > >Church ofthe Subgenius, rather than the LCC, and take all those who truly > >worship"Bob" on the saucer trip in 1998. > > > >Boiling will be optional, but for those who decide to take this > >rigorous course, enlightenment is guaranteed. The butter ceremony > >will commence immediately after scraping and boiling. > > > >-AEB > > "For us its harvest time my friends, but for them, ...its the holocaust. It's > the CRY OF THE CARROTS!!!" > published by "Tool" written by (Doh!) the cannibal guy. > > Anyhow, Ann, you are only partly correct. Did you get my entire message > regarding "PI in the SKI" and the hairless purple bunnies? I only recieved > the header of the post. I was hoping that did not go for everyone. That > information could be very useful at a future date. > --- > The Triaist > Here it is, for those that wish to KNOW: John sez: And I'm not going to be a nice guy and say "IMO" because I've recently been threatened by a severe boiling and I'm not happy about it. I've spoken to my divine allies, the hairless purple bunnies, who are now awaiting the arrival of Hale-Bopp, (which they refer to as "Hail Bob" due to an incorrect divine message sent by, guess who? none other than hermes). And because of this they are very pre-occupied with their goal to reach nirvana through "Bob". Anyhow, they were very unhappy with the fact that I interrupted them and have asked me to kindly pass this message onto everyone I come in contact with. BTW, I found out about Hale-Bopp by accident when I visited Whitley Streiber's page. Are the purple bunnies related to the Energizer Bunny? -AEB > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:19:56 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Book copy offering Message-ID: On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > There has been much discussion and requests about the very > scarce book by Ernest Wood, IS THIS THEOSOPHY? and a request for > Hartmann's equally scarce THE TALKING IMAGE OF URUR. I have a > copy of each in the library here, and I'm willing to make a one > time offer of making xerographic copies of these books. Since > they are so scarce, making copies seems to be the only way to > meet the demand for them--and it is very unlikely that anyone > will ever reprint them. > > My offer is one time, because copying books weakens the bindings, > and my copy of IS THIS THEOSOPHY is already in very poor > condition. The cost is $20.00 each. That includes postage. The > books are over 300 pages, so that really comes to less than .10 > per page. The copy will come to you as 8 1/2 X 11 unbound > sheets, each printed with two pages on one side. Please contact > me over the next three days if you are interested, so that I can > make all of the copies at once. > > I'm willing to consider making copies of other scarce and rare > books, if there is sufficient demand for them, and they are not > protected by copyright. > > > ------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > > Jerry: I would like to get 1 (one) copy of Ernest Wood's - IS THIS THEOSOPHY?. Let me know where to send my check and also if you take credit cards and if you have a fax # where I can fax you my MC/VISA number. MKRamadoss PS: I would to know how many on this list have ever seen the Wood's book. It would be an interesting statistics. MKR: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 07:54:56 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Question for Murray Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970119140712.1ecf861e@iprolink.co.nz> OK, Tom I got your message dated 16 Jan 97 - in one piece, it seems. Because of work commitments, I wasn't able to read 5 out of the 6 digests sent on 12th & 13th January, although the Boston issue was in a pretty well developed state by then. I probably missed some relevant posts. So JRC hasn't managed to cow you - mercurial manipulative rat-bag that he is, at times! Long may it continue. And just when I was beginning to decide you were a male chauvinistic pig with a hyperactive addiction to logic most of the time, you go and say some really perceptive, balanced things. Dammit, Tom. Between the two of you, my world view is taking a beating. There's one thing hard to take and that's inconsistency. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 18:59:11 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Truth Message-ID: <32E163CF.68D6@worldnet.att.net> >Truth should have ascendancy over falsehood. You seem to be implying >that objective truth does not matter. In the long run, it doesn't! Nirvana is as illusory as Samsara. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:20:40 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Book copy offering Message-ID: In message , "m.k. ramadoss" writes >Jerry: > >I would like to get 1 (one) copy of Ernest Wood's - IS THIS THEOSOPHY?. >Let me know where to send my check and also if you take credit cards and >if you have a fax # where I can fax you my MC/VISA number. > >MKRamadoss > >PS: > >I would to know how many on this list have ever seen the Wood's book. It >would be an interesting statistics. I have a battered copy, and did at one time scan some sections for posting to the list. Just this week I started re-reading it from the beginning. Wood was a fascinating person with a gift for writing, and what is essentially an autobiography sheds some fascinating light on life in England in his day. I hope in time, if I can verify it is OK to do so (copyright-wise) to scan the entire book and make it available on the net. 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, 19 Jan 1997 00:13:30 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Dogmatism Message-ID: In message <199701170806.AAA24982@palrel1.hp.com>, Titus Roth writes >If leaders are selfless and good, then being strong is an asset. Even strong >leadership, however, should be as a scaffolding to erect strong members and >then taken down. Otherwise the group follows the demise we have witnessed >over and over in religions: one to three generations after the avatar >has come, his or her teachings are made of no effect. "When you have built your temple, then put the tools aside." >From the Teaching. --------- 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, 18 Jan 1997 13:36:58 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Hale-Bopp Message-ID: <199701190119.UAA00236@cliff.cris.com> To Theos-l: For those who might want to know what Hale-Bopp is or would like more information, here is something that was posted to me by a fellow astrologer: "With all the Aquarius lineups, you might want to be aware that Comet Hale Bopp will also be transiting Aquarius in February. Recently, a wave of excitement swept over the extraterrestrial oriented internet community as a photo of Hale Bopp was released by an amateur astronomer that showed a "saturn-like" object keeping pace with the comet. Professional astronomers suggested it was a star in the background. Others suggested a UFO. The truth is out there. To track it on the internet go to: http://www.halebopp.com or http://www.artbell.com and surf from there. For a Hale Bopp ephemeris go to Astrolabe's website at: http://www.alabe.com" -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:41:07 -0800 From: bartl@sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Subject: Re: Wheaton Minutes Message-ID: <199701190141.RAA13629@m2.sprynet.com> > Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board > meetings at Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do > your research for you (meaning that you would probably have to > physically go there to examine their minutes). >I asked in St. Pete and checked once again with our historian in >Deerfield, further Sy Ginsburg is well versed in this matter, all agree >that NO information was forthcoming from Wheaton regarding this matter. >Bart, if you will give a date of publication, I will try to look again. >We in Florida are watching the posting from around the country with >interest. I go by my statement; you have the right to see the minutes from Wheaton, but they do not have the responsibility to do your research for you. In addition, I do not have the time to do the full research, either; I'm certain that Sy can fill you in on the dates involved. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 03:45:57 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <334c9829.213515335@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 19 Jan 97, Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom wrote: >>Truth should have ascendancy over falsehood. You seem to be implying >>that objective truth does not matter. >In the long run, it doesn't! Nirvana is as illusory as Samsara. What meaning does seeking truth have, if it doesn't matter? Would you regard the statement "World War 2 ended last year" as being equivalent in value to the statement "World War 2 ended in 1945?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 21:51:32 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Wheaton Minutes Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970119035132.006efa2c@mail.eden.com> At 08:46 PM 1/18/97 -0500, you wrote: >> Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board >> meetings at Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do >> your research for you (meaning that you would probably have to >> physically go there to examine their minutes). >>I asked in St. Pete and checked once again with our historian in >>Deerfield, further Sy Ginsburg is well versed in this matter, all agree >>that NO information was forthcoming from Wheaton regarding this matter. >>Bart, if you will give a date of publication, I will try to look again. >>We in Florida are watching the posting from around the country with >>interest. > > I go by my statement; you have the right to see the minutes from >Wheaton, but they do not have the responsibility to do your research for >you. In addition, I do not have the time to do the full research, either; >I'm certain that Sy can fill you in on the dates involved. > > Bart Lidofsky As a followup to my post regarding our lodge not having received any information on Boston Litigation (except for one request for moral support), I am wondering if any other lodge has received or anyone recall having seen any information on this matter. If anyone else other than Bart has seen the info, please provide a feedback. Is it also possible that only NY Lodge was provided info but not others. I am just wondering and puzzled. Reasearching minutes, IMHO, should be no problem since I believe the BOD meets only twice a year (If I am wrong, will someone knowledgeable can set the record straight). It is only a question of someone spending the money and time to travel to Olcott and stay and do the research. I am wondering if we should start a fund raising for this purpose? The funds contributed would be tax deductible as a charitable contribution for a 501(c)(3) organization. If it is a contribution from a business, then it could be a sponsorship and can be treated and deducted as such. Just a thought. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 22:09:29 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: "Is This Theosophy" by Ernest Wood Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970119040929.006f7ec0@mail.eden.com> At 07:34 PM 1/18/97 -0500, you wrote: >In message , >"m.k. ramadoss" writes >>Jerry: >> >>I would like to get 1 (one) copy of Ernest Wood's - IS THIS THEOSOPHY?. >>Let me know where to send my check and also if you take credit cards and >>if you have a fax # where I can fax you my MC/VISA number. >> >>MKRamadoss >> >>PS: >> >>I would to know how many on this list have ever seen the Wood's book. It >>would be an interesting statistics. > >I have a battered copy, and did at one time scan some sections for >posting to the list. Just this week I started re-reading it from the >beginning. Wood was a fascinating person with a gift for writing, and >what is essentially an autobiography sheds some fascinating light on >life in England in his day. I hope in time, if I can verify it is OK to >do so (copyright-wise) to scan the entire book and make it available on >the net. > >Alan >--------- Alan: I do remember your posting some sections of the book. Since the publication date was 1936, I am wondering if the copyright has expired. And also it is very unlikely that a heir to Wood's royalty comes up and makes a claim. If you may recall, scanning or copying for use in a study course is perfectly legit. So we can start a course on Theosophical History during AB, CWL period and use the book as a text. Dr. Alan would be the professor to lead and test the students. Those students enrolled can download from Alan's www homepage. Just an idea. Next in my wish list is a scanner which can handle legal size and am seriously considering HP Scanner. Any ideas, suggestions? MKR PS: Someone commented that there was a time when books not considered appropriate was either removed from general circulation or trashed from Olcott Library. It appears (based on grapewine) that the removal is likely to have taken place. I had access to the libraries of two lodges which are over 100 years old and in spite of their great collection, Wood's book was not there. There was even an instance of a set of books that one of the above lodge libraries had but even the Adyar Library did not have. On the personal request of C Jinarajadasa, then President of TS, the set of books were donated by the lodge to the Adyar Library. Apparently someone there were party line people who did not want membership, especially newbees, to read Wood's book. Now comes an opportunity, due to Internet and computer/modern technology, that it is likely to be accessible to anyone interested in the historical facts surrounding TS (Adyar). MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 23:49:10 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: horses of courses Message-ID: <199701190502.AAA18248@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Tom writes > Objective >truth does not depend on any subject's perception of it to be true. Well, dear Tom, then please tell me who is the judge of whether it's true or not. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 05:23:01 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: horses of courses Message-ID: <3353ada7.219017392@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 19 Jan 97, Liesel wrote: >Tom writes > >> Objective >>truth does not depend on any subject's perception of it to be true. >Well, dear Tom, That's sweet! >then please tell me who is the judge of whether it's true or not. Everyone is, to unique degrees. The value of all perceptions depends on how true they are, that knowledge of the degree of this truth is always subject to uncertainty notwithstanding. If there is no objective truth, no perception would be of any value. The point you are probably making is that reality, independent of perception, is irrelevant, with which I agree. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 19 00:22:49 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp Message-ID: <199701190522.AAA24505@envirolink.org> Ann E. Bermingham writes: >To Theos-l: > >For those who might want to know what Hale-Bopp is or would >like more information, here is something that was posted to >me by a fellow astrologer: >Others suggested a UFO. The truth is out there. To track it on the >internet go to: http://www.halebopp.com or http://www.artbell.com and surf >from there. For a Hale Bopp ephemeris go to Astrolabe's website at: >http://www.alabe.com" > >-AEB The Art Bell page is a pretty good place to go, however, I wouldn't take everything within it as truth. Art Bell is an entertainer, not a scientist. However, there has been a lot of excitement about the SLO (saturn-like object) regarding its existence as an extra-terrestrial craft or an M class star. With the evidence shown to me, and I've researched this quite a bit, I'd have to agree with the fact that it was a star. However, there is a picture that has been released on www.artbell.com that I have not seen yet, which is the actual picture that started all of the arguments. I'll have to take a look at it. The picture in question was taken by one of the top ten professional astronomers, but he didn't want to make his finding public until he had more evidence to back up his claims. He never got back in touch with Art Bell and nobody could get hold of him, so Bell finally decided to go ahead and release the photo. It should be pretty interesting. I think I'll take a look at it tonight. If anyone wants any more information as far as the argument is concerned, I'd be happy to post what I have recovered. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 19 00:24:23 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: horses of courses Message-ID: <199701190524.AAA24583@envirolink.org> liesel f. deutsch writes: >Tom writes > >> Objective >>truth does not depend on any subject's perception of it to be true. > >Well, dear Tom, then please tell me who is the judge of whether it's true or >not. > >Liesel The hpb's say it is Ross Perot. But, then again, those little divine critters are known for their wonderful sense of humour. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:24:51 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <970119132450_1624279429@emout03.mail.aol.com> And one should never forget that an interesting falsehood is better than a boring truth. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:23:15 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Boston Lodge Message-ID: <9701192023.AA19399@toto.csustan.edu> >>JHE >>Doss, what specific questions do you feel have not yet been >>answered concerning the expulsions of the Canadian and Danish >>sections? Please list them. Maybe we can find the answers. >> MKR > Question is very simple. > What is *the* real reason for expulsions? > >Not the simplistic legal or other reasons usually given (or not >given) for public consumption. When cancellation/expulsion is >done, I believe *no* reason or *justification* is required to be >given. > > I will give you an example. I believe when Adyar group >sued (I believe the Danish Section for recovery of assets) and >lost, the allegation by Adyar attorneys was that there was some >question about the appropriation/misappropriation of funds, >while everyone knew that the key members in the Section were all >extremely honest and spotless in their reputation and would not >misuse even a single penny. So the real reason is not what is >seen in public domain papers. JHE Right. The "public domain papers" just show the process, the legal arguments, and the determination of the court. As for the "real reason" I don't think it is so hard to divine. It always boils down to power and control issues. In such cases, "official reasons" don't really mean much. JHE >>Cancellation of a National Section Charter is a decision made >>by the International President with the approval of the General >>Council. However, I have never heard of the General Council >>opposing any decision of the President. Considering the fact >>that Radha has canceled the charters of three sections since >>she has become president, I would suggest that such >>cancellations are indeed a "simple or easy decision at the >>highest level" (at least for Radha) regardless of whether the >>worldwide membership is shrinking or not. >> MKR >While this may be true in general, I am aware of an instance in >which when Annie Besant was at the height of popularity and >power, her suggestion to modify the Object of TS was turned down >by the General Council. JHE Yes, you wrote about this before. But I don't see that instance as relevant to this one. If the issue with Radha today was to modify the objects, I suspect she would run into the same problems as Besant. After all, all the General Council Members know about the three objects, and have opinions concerning them. But more to the point of this case, and of present times, most members of the General Council never attend those meetings in the first place. Those that do, have go by Radha's agenda and don't really know much about what is going on in most cases. For instance, what were the General Council members who attend going to do when Radha presented all of the "facts" concerning why the Canadian section's or the Danish Section's charter should be pulled, and no one else but Radha has any first hand information about the subject? If you were a Council member and trusted Radha's judgement, wouldn't you have supported her decision on the matter? Perhaps you wouldn't have, but most did. More basic to all of this is the argument I have raised over and over again: the TS is only superficially a democratic organization. Ordinary members might occasionally get elected to one or another office, but the control of the TS is with a tight group and the ES is over that. ------------------------------------------ |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: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 16:29:34 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970119162934_374864971@emout19.mail.aol.com> Jerry Schueler wrote--> It suggests that women are more compassionate than men. You are apparently neglecting all of the compassionate men in the world. Tom Robertson writes--> I am? This is illogical. Richard Ihle writes--> Here, Tom, is a good example of why Mindfulness is better than "truth." On the one hand, there is Jerry Schueler who has spent a lifetime in arcane and other studies. He has written many books on magic; however, one can almost be certain that he has not put everything he knows into them. Undoubtedly, he is holding back at least a few of his best secrets--most likely the really powerful ones which involve techniques and practical applications. On the other hand, you come right out and tell him that his thinking is "illogical." Now let me ask you: who is Jerry more likely to sooner or later share his ultimate secrets with? You who always has to be so "truthful" and alpha-male, or me who is so Mindful of this future possiblity for scraps that a talking dog under the dinner table could not outdo me in charming manner of elocution? Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 16:19:57 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32E29E0D.5B62@eden.com> Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > More basic to all of this is the argument I have raised over and > over again: the TS is only superficially a democratic > organization. Ordinary members might occasionally get elected to > one or another office, but the control of the TS is with a tight > group and the ES is over that. > Thanks for your feedback. Is this not the kind of situation that Olcott being a smart lawyer and man with a lot of practical experience and common sense and one who cared so much for the TS he helped to build, feared that may happen down the road, when the ES was getting formed? I would welcome anyone on theos-l, who can convince all of us here that the above reading of the situation is *NOT* true. We have, it appears, a *emperor* has no clothes situation!!! Your mileage and direction may vary, but would like to know. M K Ramadoss PS: Again as I revisited the 1900 letter from Master KH, his comment to AB about popery and unnecessary secrecy seems to fit in, IMHO. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:40:48 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <32feae09.11354096@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Sun, 19 Jan 97, Richard Ihle wrote: >Jerry Schueler wrote--> >It suggests that women are more compassionate than men. You are >apparently neglecting all of the compassionate men in the world. > >Tom Robertson writes--> >I am? This is illogical. > >Richard Ihle writes--> >Here, Tom, is a good example of why Mindfulness is better than "truth." What does the saying that "there is no religion higher than truth" mean to you? >On the one hand, there is Jerry Schueler who has spent a lifetime in arcane >and other studies. He has written many books on magic; however, one can >almost be certain that he has not put everything he knows into them. > Undoubtedly, he is holding back at least a few of his best secrets--most >likely the really powerful ones which involve techniques and practical >applications. I neither knew about any of this nor do I see its relevance. >On the other hand, you come right out and tell him that his thinking is >"illogical." In this case, it was. I made a generalization about men and women. Included in the definition of a generalization is that it has exceptions. He wrongly understood my statement to either mean that I believe that the least compassionate woman is more compassionate than the most compassionate man, or perhaps, even further from what I meant, that no man has any compassion. By no stretch of the imagination, with anything close to the common, standard understanding in the English language of the words I used was I "neglecting all of the compassionate men in the world." But by no means was I saying that his thinking is generally illogical. I take your word for it that he knows as much about magic as you say he does, but I doubt he could know that much about magic, or, more generally, whether anyone can know very much about anything, without being logical. >Now let me ask you: who is Jerry more likely to sooner or later share his >ultimate secrets with? You who always has to be so "truthful" and >alpha-male, or me who is so Mindful of this future possiblity for scraps that >a talking dog under the dinner table could not outdo me in charming >manner of elocution? You are implying that a relationship in which the truth should not be spoken is better than one in which it can be. If Jerry would not tell me other things he knows that I don't know just because I pointed out how he was illogical in one case, I would consider him to be responsible for that. I would rather be able to speak the truth and not learn what anyone has to say than to have to sell out the truth and charm people into telling me things. If correctly using logic is "alpha-male," then being "alpha-male" is good. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 23:20:01 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Message-ID: In message <9701192023.AA19399@toto.csustan.edu>, Jerry Hejka-Ekins writes >More basic to all of this is the argument I have raised over and >over again: the TS is only superficially a democratic >organization. Ordinary members might occasionally get elected to >one or another office, but the control of the TS is with a tight >group and the ES is over that. Jerry - Dunno about the ES, but one suspects. I served my Lodge as Treasurer (1 year) President (2 Years) Vice-president (1 year) and Premises Officer (9 months). I was thrown off the committee two days before a committee meeting by the current President of the same Lodge at his own whim, notwithstanding that this was entirely illegal from the point of view of the rules. When - owing to local outcries - the Gen. Sec. In England had to intervene and take the next AGM of the Lodge, she acted in a similar cavalier fashion, as it seemed to me, and the details of this high handed injustice were not even allowed to be heard. In the background during this period, personal and slanderous allegations about my character and behaviour were circulated (anonymously) by certain members of the lodge. One of these was so serious that I felt obliged to inform the local police that the allegation had been made as soon as it was brought to my attention, so that they would have a record of the circumstance should anyone seek to press matters further. I later had a letter from the Lodge President informing me that the complainant had withdrawn the allegation, which suggests that far from being anonyomous, the person was known to him. Of course, by this time I was out of it, and the slander was no longer needed. The same Lodge President threw out his Librarian this Christmas in a very similar fashion. The fact that the Librarian (and myself a year before him) had been elected by the membership obviously meant nothing. What is distressing about the Librarian is that owing to his having to sleep in a Salvation Army Hostel where they throw everyone out for the daytime, he had been allowed over many years to use the Lodge premises during the day, and thus had long term use of the facilities (heating, kitchen, etc.) which on the face of it was a very "theosophical" and compassionate attitude on the part of the Lodge. So they threw him on to the street (figuratively speaking) just as the local temparature dropped to 3 to 5 degrees below freezing. And this is a man who can almost recite verbatim the info on root races, rounds, chains, etc. So far as I am concerned, the Bristol Lodge of the Theosophical Society in England is everything a theosophical lodge subscribing to the three objects should never be allowed to become. They also avoid, so far as I understand the law on these matters, paying local taxes (rates) by presenting themselves locally (Bristol) as a "Religious Denomination of Theosophists." I understand other lodges in England also do this. How a Society which professes allegiance to no creed can allow such claims to exist is beyond me. In the first edition of "Key to Theosophy" a judge even ruled that by its own definition, the nature of the Society via its objects prevented it from being regarded as a religious organisation. Not surprisingly perhaps, this section is omitted from later editions. Whilst I am still nominally a member of this disgraceful organisation, I no longer consider myself to be a part of it, and now regard it with nothing but contempt. 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, 19 Jan 1997 19:33:29 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 838 Message-ID: <970119193328_1691754345@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-19 18:55:23 EST, you write: << In message , >"m.k. ramadoss" writes >>Jerry: >> >>I would like to get 1 (one) copy of Ernest Wood's - IS THIS THEOSOPHY?. >>Let me know where to send my check and also if you take credit cards and >>if you have a fax # where I can fax you my MC/VISA number. >> >>MKRamadoss >> >>PS: >> >>I would to know how many on this list have ever seen the Wood's book. It >>would be an interesting statistics. >> I have IS THIS THEOSOPHY? by Ernest Wood but I can't seem to find it. It's buried somewhere in my library. I have other interesting volumes by E. Wood which include: A SECRET DOCTRINE DIGEST, Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar - 1956 THE BHAGAVAD GITA EXPLAINED, Theosophical Press, Chicago - 1954 THE SEVEN RAYS, Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar - 1952 THE INTUITION OF THE WILL, Theosophical Press, Chicago - 1927 THE OCCULT TRAINING OF THE HINDUS, Ganesh & Co., Madras - 1952 THE NEW THEOSOPHY, Theosophical Press, Chicago - 1929 THE SCIENCE OF PRAYER, The St. Alban Press, Sydney - 1926 Another oldie but goodie is: EXTRACTS FROM THE VAHAN, Theosophical Publishing Society, Benares - 1924 (questions & answers on theosophy by AB,CWL, Mead, Sinnett, Keightley, etc.etc.) Also: COLLECTED FRUITS OF OCCULT TEACHINGS by A.P.Sinnett J. B. Lippincott & Company, Philadelphia - 1920 For reprinted metaphysical classics, try: HEALTH RESEARCH, P.O. Box 70, Mokelumne Hill, California 95245 also: SUN PUBLICATIONS COMPANY, P.O. Box 5588, Sante Fe, New Mexico 87502-5588 also: R.A. KESSINGER, P.O. Box 160, Kila, Montana 59920 Namaste LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 19:50:15 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 838 Message-ID: <970119195014_946781970@emout07.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-19 18:55:23 EST, you write: << Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: > > More basic to all of this is the argument I have raised over and > over again: the TS is only superficially a democratic > organization. Ordinary members might occasionally get elected to > one or another office, but the control of the TS is with a tight > group and the ES is over that. >> I agree. This appears to be the case in the Canadian situation, at least according to what I have read in THE CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST. The ES attempted to exert control over the agenda in the Section, creating an adversarial relationship between it and the non-ES membership resulting in irreconcilable differences. The ES won with an "excommunication" from a sympathetic Adyar. Over the years, the ES has taken on the form of a "shadow government" much like the so-called "Majestic 12" in UFO lore. Namaste LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:16:23 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Leadership Message-ID: <199701200116.RAA14087@palrel1.hp.com> The discussion of leadership and peripheral subjects reminded me of a few scattered passages written by Ann Ree Colton on the King or the higher self. The way one rules his or her inner kingdom should be how he or she conducts himself or herself when placed with responsibilities for others. If a leader cleaned his or her own house first, he or she would earn his or her position and at least a few would recognize him or her and be prepared to give their all for him or her. (Pant ... pant ... can I drop the arduous "he or she" and declare that "man" is used in the generic sense in what follows? I assure you that having had a woman spiritual teacher makes me think in generic terms when I see "man". Thanks.) >From "The King" by ARC: "Man is blessed if he rules his kingdom as a king. If he is divided between his royalty and himself, his kingdom falls ... "A wise ruler rules over many hearts and houses. He is a governor of his own heart and mind, that he may judge the foolish and the strong who do foolish things ... "No man is above correction. Rulers who judge with hardened hearts need correction. Their guardian daemons scourge them; and their errors are placed before the people. The people and their offspring become as sand and wind; their wails go up; they cry out for a ruler who needeth not correction ... "A true king listens to the counsel of a wise and loyal sayer in his household. His ear is closed to sweetened words. He who rules needs wise counsel more than any other man ... "Men may read the light of the king not on tombs, not on obelisks; his record is read in the Light of Lights ... "When a kingdom is yet young, light is veiled, and men say, 'How the sun is shining.' "When light is weak, men go blind and are led by children ... "The seven days are given to man that he might bring the report of good to his king. Man must discern what part of the day belongs to the king and what part of the day belongs to man. When all days belong to the king, man becomes the king." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:26:20 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32E2D7CC.3FCE@eden.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > The same Lodge President threw out his Librarian this Christmas in a > very similar fashion. The fact that the Librarian (and myself a year > before him) had been elected by the membership obviously meant nothing. > > What is distressing about the Librarian is that owing to his having to > sleep in a Salvation Army Hostel where they throw everyone out for the > daytime, he had been allowed over many years to use the Lodge premises > during the day, and thus had long term use of the facilities (heating, > kitchen, etc.) which on the face of it was a very "theosophical" and > compassionate attitude on the part of the Lodge. > > So they threw him on to the street (figuratively speaking) just as the > local temparature dropped to 3 to 5 degrees below freezing. And this is > a man who can almost recite verbatim the info on root races, rounds, > chains, etc. It is a pity and disgrace to read the above. Anyone with a little heart will find it very very difficult to throw out anyone on the streets knowing pretty well the helpless condition. It is outrageous for anyone not protect anyone who needs help. In all cases where someone was allowed to stay in the lodge premises -- usually it is a deserving case -- it has always done a lot of good to the lodge. Usually, such individuals have been helpful when any inquirer knocks on the door and is able to intelligently present theosophical principles and ideas. It is time that some common sense is knocked in their heads -- the prime motivation to start the TS, from the highest Powers is to help Humanity; it is time to put every member thru a re-orientation so that the priorities are in right order. I have also heard of a somewhat similar instance at a well known "Lodge" in the US. So it appears that there may be others who know of somewhat similar instances, and a pattern may be developing. A question arises in my mind. From my limited understanding of the principle of Karma, most of the destruction is caused by self created causes. If TS was started with Brotherhood as the foundation, if the actions are exact opposite of it, are forces being set up which will unltimately end up with the shut down of TS as we know it. I may be wrong. But IMHO, this is likely scenario. MKRamadoss > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:28:55 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 838 Message-ID: <32E2D867.1AA6@eden.com> Lmhem111@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-01-19 18:55:23 EST, you write: > > << In message , > >"m.k. ramadoss" writes > >>Jerry: > >> > >>I would like to get 1 (one) copy of Ernest Wood's - IS THIS THEOSOPHY?. > >>Let me know where to send my check and also if you take credit cards and > >>if you have a fax # where I can fax you my MC/VISA number. > >> > >>MKRamadoss > >> > >>PS: > >> > >>I would to know how many on this list have ever seen the Wood's book. It > >>would be an interesting statistics. >> > > I have IS THIS THEOSOPHY? by Ernest Wood but I can't seem to find it. It's > buried somewhere in my library. I have other interesting volumes by E. Wood > I believe most of Wood's other books may be in print. But certainly IS THIS THEOSOPHY is out of print. I you find it and are interested in selling it, I would be interested in purchasing it. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:29:28 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: horses Message-ID: <199701200243.VAA02130@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >If there is no objective truth, no >perception would be of any value. A perception is of value when it is shared by others, or understood by others. A shared/understood perception facilitates communication. LFD From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:32:09 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: horses Message-ID: <199701200246.VAA02678@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >The hpb's say it is Ross Perot. But, then again, those little divine critters >are known for their wonderful sense of humour. >--- >The Triaist > Indeed! lfd From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 20:06:04 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Leadership Message-ID: <199701200306.UAA12220@snowden.micron.net> Titus wrote: >The discussion of leadership and peripheral subjects reminded me of a few >scattered passages written by Ann Ree Colton on the King or the higher >self. The way one rules his or her inner kingdom should be how he or she >conducts himself or herself when placed with responsibilities for others. If a >leader cleaned his or her own house first, he or she would earn his or her >position and at least a few would recognize him or her and be prepared to give >their all for him or her. (Pant ... pant ... can I drop the arduous "he or >she" and declare that "man" is used in the generic sense in what follows? I >assure you that having had a woman spiritual teacher makes me think in generic >terms when I see "man". Thanks.) Quoting someone who uses gender-exclusive language does not make the 'one who quotes' guilty of the same blunder. "Pant ... pant ... can I drop the arduous. . ." Arduous? You will find gender-inclusive language not so arduous once you have gotten used to using it. It will come smoothly, effortlessly. You will also find there are ways of being genderless without continually repeating, as you have done in your first paragraph, 'him or her' 'himself or herself,' but I am impressed with your effort. I had a friend once who told me he would rather put a disclaimer on his article than use gender-inclusive language. He claimed it was "faster and more efficient." After he had finished his disclaimer, I asked him to compare the work involved between the two - using gender-inclusive language/apologizing for not using gender-inclusive language. He wrote fifty-seven more words of apology than if he had simply done the dirty deed. He hasn't spoken to me since. . .but his article did end up addressing all of humanity. He was even noted for being "progressive." Hmmmm. . . >>From "The King" by ARC: >"No man is above correction. I hear you talkin', Ann Ree Colton. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 01:32:16 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970120013214_202877347@emout18.mail.aol.com> Richard Ihle writes--> Here, Tom, is a good example of why Mindfulness is better than "truth." Tom Robertson writes--> What does the saying that "there is no religion higher than truth" mean to you? RI--> That Mindfulness is not a religion? That truth and Mindfulness are the same thing? Nothing at all? TR--> I neither knew about any of this [that J.S. has written books and might have more secrets] nor do I see its relevance. RI--> The relevance is that this is the good kind of person to kiss-up to if you are ever inclined to kiss-up. TS--> But by no means was I saying that his thinking is generally illogical. I take your word for it that he knows as much about magic as you say he does, but I doubt he could know that much about magic, or, more generally, whether anyone can know very much about anything, without being logical. RI--> Perhaps logic is just the slow vapor trail which forms after the flawless/flawed jet of intuition, perception, or apprehension has flown over. Perhaps logic is even worthless unless it initially has something valid to manipulate. Perhaps the better class of both magicians and theosophists strive first to become ~seers~ rather than expert logicians. Perhaps the ~abandonment~ of overly strict logical thinking is the sine qua non of magic. TS--> If Jerry would not tell me other things he knows that I don't know just because I pointed out how he was illogical in one case, I would consider him to be responsible for that. RI--> Perhaps if Jerry does not agree that he was illogical, he then might be tempted to start regarding you as someone who basically ~sees~ things differently than he does. Perhaps he might tell you some other things; however, why would he tell you his most ~precious~ things when the chances are good that you would not be able to see what he means again and probably end up by calling them illogical too? (Also, I didn't quite get how you were using ~responsible~ in the above context. Did you mean ~reprehensible~?) TR--> I would rather be able to speak the truth and not learn what anyone has to say than to have to sell out the truth and charm people into telling me things. RI--> Easy for you to say. When it comes to "truth," I wish I could be as cocksure of anything as you may be of everything (JRC coached me to say this). Anyway, perhaps we "sell out" truth to some extent every time we try to put it into words, so what's the big sacrifice in being charming or silent? TR--> If correctly using logic is "alpha-male," then being "alpha-male" is good. RI--> I did not and would not make this association. Logic = alpha? I don't know . . . rightly or wrongly, I sometimes just get the feeling I could take the lunch money of any guy who can only syllogize his way around the ring (Alexis coached me to say this). . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 06:52:13 GMT From: ejlight@earthlink.net (E. J.) Subject: (fwd) World Meditation Day Message-ID: <32e4159f.5145007@mail.earthlink.net> [:->> World Meditation Day [:->> [:->> Thursday, January 23rd, 1997 [:->> Between 12:00 and 1:30 Local Time [:->> [:->> Dr. John Miles Evans [:->> 11 January 1997 [:->> [:->> On 23 January 1997 a group of eight planets will form a [:->>variant of an unusual pattern -- a six-pointed star. Sometimes [:->>known as a Grand Sextile or Star of David, this pattern is an [:->>integration of various diverse energies into a harmonious whole. [:->> [:->> This variant is the more unusual in that it is actually [:->>a five-pointed star, but aligned so that the Ascendent -- the [:->>point on the horizon -- makes the sixth "point". As a result, [:->>meditation or other intentional activity at this time may serve [:->>to trigger the latent energies in the overall planetary pattern [:->>-- completing the circuit, as it were, through the efforts we [:->>make at this time. [:->> [:->> The exact time when this occurs varies with locality. [:->>For most locations in the northern hemisphere the time is between [:->>12 noon and 1:00 pm, but there are some locations where the time [:->>may be as late as 1:30 pm; Miami, Florida is one such location.(1) [:->> [:->> For those who are not students of astrology, a brief [:->>introduction may be appropriate. [:->> [:->> One can understand any pattern of the planets as a [:->>symbolic representation describing the nature and qualities of a [:->>particular moment of time -- operating through the principle CG [:->>Jung termed "synchronicity."(2) [:->> [:->> While written language is linear -- one word [:->>following another -- the "language" of astrology is a complex [:->>pattern, which cannot be adequately translated into a linear [:->>form. But some sense of the meaning of this pattern may be [:->>gleaned through studying the individual planets involved, and [:->>their location by "sign" and "house" (two indicators of qualities [:->>expressed by planets in the pattern). [:->> [:->> In the planetary pattern for World Meditation Day, [:->>the Sun, Jupiter, and Uranus are all "conjunct" (together) at the [:->>beginning of Aquarius, in the Ninth House, along with Neptune in [:->>late Capricorn in the Ninth House. These planets are [:->>harmoniously related to Saturn in Aries in the 11th, Pluto in [:->>Sagittarius in the 7th, and Mars in Libra conjunct the North Node [:->>in the 5th House. The fifth "point" is the Moon in Leo in the [:->>3rd House. [:->> [:->> Aquarius is the sign most connected with humanity as [:->>a whole, and is particularly activated by group efforts. That [:->>three planets -- representing Being and Identity (Sun), Expansion [:->>and Wisdom (Jupiter), and Sudden Awakening (Uranus) -- are all [:->>concentrated in Aquarius is quite significant. [:->> [:->> Mars, the planet of activity, conjuncting the North [:->>Node of the Moon, an indicator of spiritual integration and [:->>development, in the 5th house, that of creativity and personal [:->>expression, indicates that those who take action to participate [:->>in the pattern may further their own spiritual awareness. [:->> [:->> Pluto, the planet of purification and regeneration, [:->>is located in Sagittarius in the 7th House, symbolizing a [:->>transformation of our belief systems through forming committed [:->>relationship with those aspects of ourselves which we may have [:->>ignored or taken for granted previously. In this case [:->>"ourselves" may represent our common humanity, and the need to [:->>understand all human beings as being equally valuable and [:->>important. [:->> [:->> The Moon, located in Leo in the 3rd house is opposing [:->>the planets in Aquarius. This gives added dynamic tension to the [:->>overall pattern. The Moon is symbolic of our deepest feelings, [:->>Leo has a great deal to do with our sense of identity, and the [:->>Third House is the area of mental concepts. This implies that [:->>there may be a tendency to oppose the movement toward a broader [:->>understanding and a new orientation toward ourselves because of [:->>our emotional attachment to old ideas about life, and old beliefs [:->>about our sense of who we are. [:->> [:->> Neptune, located in the Ninth House in Capricorn, [:->>indicates the possibility of dissolving old belief systems to [:->>make way for the new. This idea is presented in different ways [:->>in several areas of the overall "chart" for the day. [:->> [:->> The sixth "point" is the Ascendent in early Gemini. [:->>Gemini is strongly associated with the conscious mind. By [:->>actively engaging in meditation or other focused mental activity [:->>at this particular time, one has the opportunity both to expand [:->>one's own awareness, and also to further the expansion of [:->>humanity as a whole -- breaking down the barriers separating each [:->>of us as individuals, and becoming participants in a type of [:->>"world mind", in which we recognize our common humanity as the [:->>most important component. [:->> [:->> This is emphasized by the presence of Saturn, the [:->>planet symbolizing traditional structure and limits, in Aries, [:->>the sign of new beginnings (where Saturn's power is weakest) and [:->>in the 11th or (Aquarian) House where that structure which can be [:->>developed is focused on the birth of a "group mind". [:->> [:->> Finally, Mercury, the planet most associated with [:->>Gemini, is in Capricorn in the 8th House, indicated the [:->>possibility of purification and transformation of our conceptual [:->>picture of life through focused effort, with the need to let go [:->>of old emotional ties to past concepts about how life is. [:->> [:->> Astrologers will see much more in this pattern than [:->>presented here. But for those who are not astrologers, I hope [:->>this overview will give you some sense of the significance of [:->>this opportunity for both individual and group development, and [:->>the importance of taking time on 23 January between 12 noon and [:->>1:00 pm to participate quietly in this important event -- in [:->>whatever way seems best to you. [:->> [:->> One last point -- "intent" is all important with this [:->>pattern. For those who wish to make maximum use of this unusual [:->>opportunity, a period of preparation in which you look at your [:->>own deepest beliefs and desires for change may be useful. And [:->>practice meditations, in which you work on focusing your intent [:->>for what you wish to achieve on 23 January, may also be helpful. [:->> [:->> My blessings to you in however you choose to [:->>participate. [:->> [:->> Footnotes [:->> [:->>(1) For those who would like the exact time for your location, [:->>consult a local astrologer and ask for the time when the [:->>Ascendant is at 4-5 degrees Gemini on 23 January, 1997. [:->> [:->>(2) Jung, CG. "Synchronicity, an Acausal Connecting Principle". [:->>In Collected Works, Vol. 8: Structure and Dynamics of the [:->>Psyche. [:->> [:->>----------------- [:->>TO REMOVE YOUR NAME FROM THIS LIST, please send a message to: [:->> with the request: remove from H/B List [:->> [:->> [:->> --------------------------- Know what you do not know, and Know that you do not Know it - Know what you know, and Know that you Know it - And be able to Know the difference between the two. Let There Be Light -- Always in All Ways, e.j. [;-) http://home.earthlink.net/~ejlight/index1.html "The reverse side also has a reverse side." -- Japanese Proverb From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 11:59:43 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Rebuttal Part 1 Message-ID: <199701201659.LAA16463@leo.vsla.edu> > STRAIN AT A GNAT, SWALLOW A CAMEL: > A Reply to Daniel Caldwell's Criticisms > by K. Paul Johnson > > > > Madame Blavatsky aroused passionate debate during her > life and has continued to be a topic of controversy ever > since. It should come as no surprise that a new theory about > her can arouse intense feelings in a readership polarized by > decades of rancorous argument. Nevertheless, I have been > surprised and dismayed by the outrage some Theosophists have > expressed toward my books, which are fundamentally friendly and > positive in their approach. My sympathy for Theosophy caused > the books to be dismissed as "pious" and "deferential" toward > Blavatsky in a recent article by a non-Theosophist. For several years, > Daniel Caldwell has been denouncing my writings > about Blavatsky and her Masters, and now his objections are published > in a booklet and on-line. Responding to his criticisms provides me a > welcome opportunity to address many points of misunderstanding. > > > > "NOTHING MORE THAN A HOUSE OF CARDS" > > > > The phrase "nothing more than a house of cards" conveys > the dilemma of any author attempting to reconstruct the past > from fragmentary and labyrinthine evidence. When the subject > is a person who deliberately concealed some elements of her > past and exaggerated others, this dilemma intensifies. The > author has to evaluate conflicting evidence and work around > frustrating gaps in the record. At one level, "house of cards" > accurately describes every attempt to explain Blavatsky, whose > life remains mysterious despite the efforts of generations of > biographers. But at another level, the phrase conveys wishful > thinking and a destructive attitude on the part of persons > leveling the accusation. My response will explore both of > these levels of meaning. > The crucial question here is how solidly constructed my > books are compared to other "houses of cards" that have been > built to explain HPB. Mr. Caldwell's critique fails to address > the great majority of the evidence presented in my books in > support of the identifications of Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh > as the primary prototypes for Morya and Koot Hoomi > respectively. This violates the very standard he sets forth in > his critique: "Details that could throw doubt on your > interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do > the best you can-- if you know anything at all wrong, or > possibly wrong-- to explain it," in the words of Richard > Feynman. Mr. Caldwell ignores most of the details on which my > arguments are based, but concludes that my hypotheses are "highly > implausible and dubious when carefully scrutinized in light of > all [sic] the known facts." By failing to scrutinize most of > the known facts cited in my arguments for the identifications > in question, he leaves the reader quite unprepared to evaluate > his conclusions. Therefore I offer this synopsis of the major > evidence presented in my books concerning Morya and Koot > Hoomi's identifications, in the order in which it appears: > > > ### > > > > 1. In *Caves and Jungles of Hindustan*, HPB portrays an adept > called "Gulab-Singh" as the chief sponsor and companion of the TS > Founders in their Indian travels; he is the Rajput ruler of a > small native state, called a Thakur in most references but a > raja and prince in others. In a letter to Prince Dondukov-Korsakov, > HPB identifies Gulab-Singh as Morya. Her tales of meeting him > in London in her youth, which appear in *Caves and Jungles* and > *HPB Speaks*, are variations on similar stories about Morya > appearing elsewhere. Ranbir Singh was the most important > Rajput ruler who sponsored and supported the TS Founders in > their travels and activities; his father was named Gulab Singh. > 2. In *Old Diary Leaves* Olcott describes *Caves and Jungles* > as heavily fictionalized, but also describes Gulab-Singh as a > real adept known to him and HPB. He gives no indication that > Gulab-Singh and Morya are the same person, unlike the HPB > letter cited above. This is relevant to points in Mr. > Caldwell's critique discussed below. > 3. According to *Isis Unveiled*, HPB visited Ranbir Singh's > kingdom in her youthful travels, passing from Kashmir to Leh, > Ladakh (part of his domain). She calls Ladakh "central Tibet" > which suggests that as of 1877 her familiarity with Tibet was > quite limited. > 4. In an entry in Olcott's diary, HPB noted that Edward > Wimbridge had brought her a copy of the *London Illustrated > News* which contained "Holkar's and Some One's portrait, among > others." The volume containing a portrait of Maharaja Holkar > of Indore, a TS sponsor, also contains a portrait of Maharaja > Ranbir Singh of Kashmir, among those of other native rulers. > Ranbir Singh is the only one with major ties to the TS, which > suggests that he was "Some One." HPB's reverence and > evasiveness indicate that she is referring to some important > Master figure that she is reluctant to name in the diary. > 5. HPB's least-known book *The Durbar in Lahore* gives a > lengthy, detailed description of Ranbir Singh and his > entourage. It portrays the main objective of her and Olcott's > trip to Lahore as meeting Ranbir and some Punjabi Sikhs > including Maharaja Bikram Singh of Faridkot. > 6. In the preface to *Isis Unveiled* HPB refers to > "influential corresponents" in Kashmir and other places, > indicating that there was some connection with important > persons in that kingdom prior to her departure from New York > for India. > 7. In a letter from K.H. to Sinnett, Ranbir Singh is called > "the prince first on the programme" for support of the > *Phoenix* newspaper venture that was to be edited by Sinnett > under the Masters' guidance. > 8. In May 1883, a supplement in *The Theosophist* described a > visit to Jammu by supporters of the Indian Patriotic > Association, who had an audience with Ranbir Singh and his > sons. Among them was "D. Nath Bawaji," the alleged chela with > multiple aliases; Ranbir Singh treated him with special > hospitality and warmth. After the death of Ranbir Singh, > Bawaji (usually spelled Babaji) rebelled against HPB and > disappeared from Theosophical history. > 9. In a letter to Sinnett, HPB says that Ranbir Singh "sent > for" Olcott to visit him in the Fall of 1883, and that K.H. > ordered him to go to a certain pass. Thus Olcott's travel > plans were being guided jointly by the orders of Ranbir Singh > and K.H., according to HPB. > 10. In his *Old Diary Leaves* description of his stay in > Jammu, Olcott describes Ranbir in extremely favorable terms, as > a "thoughtful Vedantin, well acquainted with philosophical > systems" who "fully believed in the existence of living > Mahatmas." > 11. Damodar Mavalankar, who had vanished from Ranbir Singh's > guest house and was gone for three days, returned reporting > that he had left there with K.H. to go to an ashram of the Masters. He later identified this ashram as being > "within His Highness' Dominion." > 12. In an article written later, Damodar said that Ranbir > Singh "not only believed in the existence of the HIMALAYAN > MAHATMAS, but seemed sure of the fact from personal knowledge." > 13. Ranbir Singh was a chief financial sponsor of the Punjab > University, which was deeply influenced by the Singh Sabha, an > organization with ties to the TS Founders. Thakar Singh > Sandhanwalia, my nominee for K.H.'s primary prototype, was the > founding President of the Singh Sabha. > 14. Ranbir Singh was a profoundly religious ruler, a Hindu > who was very supportive of scholarship in Buddhist and Islamic > texts as well as those of his own faith, and a social reformer > with ideals similar to those of Swami Dayananda Sarasvati's > Arya Samaj, with which the TS leaders were loosely allied at > the time of the Lahore durbar. > A summary paragraph in *The Masters Revealed* explains the > crucial elements of the evidence presented thus far: > There were two points in the history of the TS at which > the Masters Morya and Koot Hoomi appeared as solid > historical personages rather than elusive semi-ethereal > beings. At both of these points, the same triangular > configuration is apparent: the Founders of the TS, the > Maharaja Ranbir Singh, and an Amritsar Sikh Sirdar are found > working in collusion. In October and November 1880, the > Founders' trip to the Punjab to meet these figures consided > with the beginning of the Mahatma correspondence. In November > 1883, Olcott's trip to Lahore and Jammu again involved Punjabi > Sikh Sirdars and the Maharaja of Kashmir. > Several factors distinguish the quality of this evidence > from the alleged visits *to* the TS Founders *by* M. and K.H. > cited as counterevidence by Mr. Caldwell. It is far more > feasible to follow known people making documented journeys to > known locations by known means than to follow unknown persons > making undocumented journeys by unknown means which are > allegedly miraculous in some cases. I have followed HPB and > Olcott to Northern India and determined as best I could whom > they met there and why (having literally retraced their steps > when possible); I welcome and invite alternative explanations > of these journeys and relationships. But instead Mr. Caldwell > offers only "evidence" which is entirely useless in identifying > prototypes for M. and K.H., which in some cases sounds more > like apparitions or stage magic than normal encounters, and > which therefore is more truly a "house of cards" than anything > I have proposed. If he and others of like mind were to offer > in print the explanation of the evidence which they prefer to > mine and the reasons they find it more credible, readers would > be in a position to evaluate alternative "houses of cards." As > things stand, my critics are silent as to their own explanation > of the evidence and concentrate on attacking mine, perhaps on > the principle that the best defense is a good offense. > There is more evidence supporting the identification of > Thakar Singh Sandhanwalia as a prototype of K.H. than there is > concerning Ranbir Singh and Morya. Summarizing that presented > in *The Masters Revealed*: > 1. In April 1878, HPB wrote an article entitled "The Akhund of > Swat" which included a glowing encomium for Sikhism. This > referred to Sirdars, each of whom was chief of one of twelve > misls. She added that Sikh Sirdars had secret councils > consisting of learned gurus, some of whom were "Masters in > Spiritual Science...[who] exhibited astounding miracles." > 2. In *Caves and Jungles* HPB describes an acquaintance who is > an Akali or temple functionary, an Amritsar native, named > Ram-Ranjit-Das, who has a spiritual link to Gulab-Singh. > 3. In *Old Diary Leaves* Olcott describes "one of the Masters" > who meets him at the Amritsar Golden Temple where he is > "figuring among the guardians." > 4. HPB, in a letter reproduced by Richard Hodgson in his > report, wrote to Moolji Thackersey about a Sikh friend of the > TS that Moolji had presumably described in a letter, commenting > "You call him a Sirdar" and adding that "he is of Amritsar." > She inquires about finding descendants of Ranjit Singh, and > asks Moolji to recruit rajas and maharajas to the TS. Thakar > Singh was a Sirdar from Amritsar, a relative of Ranjit Singh, > and an associate of several rajas and maharajas with TS links. > 5. The first letter from K.H. to Sinnett dates from October > 1880, the month in which the TS Founders visited Amritsar en > route to the Durbar in Lahore. > 6. An early K.H. letter was dated from "Amritas Saras" (the > Golden Temple) and refers to '`greasy' Tibetans and Punjabi > Singhs" as "our best, most learned and holiest adepts." > 7. The Sikh reform organization the Singh Sabha, founded in > Amritsar by Thakar Singh and others, shared many objectives > with the Arya Samaj of Swami Dayananda, and worked > cooperatively with it. Ranbir Singh also endorsed much of the > Arya Samaj reform program, and was very supportive of the Singh > Sabha. HPB initially portrayed Dayananda as affiliated with M. > and K.H., but changed her attitude later. > 8. HPB's *The Durbar in Lahore* includes detailed descriptions > of Amritsar, the Golden Temple, and Sikhism, and describes a > Lahore meeting with Ram-Ranjit-Das, who takes HPB and Olcott to > the Maharaja of Faridkot. This maharaja was a Singh Sabha > member and strong supporter of Thakar Singh in later political > plots. > 9. The same work includes lengthy discussion of the deposed > Maharaja Dalip Singh, in which HPB denounces his conversion to > Christianity and shows great sympathy for his widowed mother. > Thakar Singh was later instrumental in Dalip's reconversion to > Sikhism. > 10. In November 1883, Olcott went to Lahore en route to Jammu, > at the joint invitation of Ranbir Singh and K.H. according to > HPB's letter to Sinnett. In Lahore he was visited in the flesh > by K.H., accompanied by another Master, as were William T. > Brown and Damodar Mavalankar according to the testimony of all > three. > 11. According to the January 1884 supplement to *The > Theosophist*, Olcott, Damodar and Brown were transported to > their quarters by conveyances provided by "Raja Harbans Singh > and other Sirdars." These quarters were the site of the visit > by K.H. described above. > 12. At a reception welcoming the group to Lahore, they were > greeted by Sirdar Dayal Singh Majithia of Amritsar and Bhai > Gurmukh Singh, both important colleagues of Thakar Singh in the > Singh Sabha, as well as a commissioner deputed by Maharaja > Ranbir Singh. > 13. Thakar Singh was the cousin of the deposed maharaja Dalip > Singh, and in early 1883 decided to go to England to visit him > on family business. But as of November 9 he was still at home > and writing to the lieutenant-governor of the Punjab attempting > to get permission for the trip. Sometime in the summer of 1884 > he arrived in London, where Sinnett had relocated. > 14. K.H., in a letter to Sinnett during the collapse of the > *Phoenix* venture, sounded a note of patriotic desperation, > saying he was "bound to devote the whole of my powers as far as > the Chohan will permit me to help my country at this eleventh > hour of her misery." > 15. Another letter from K.H. appealed to patriotic motives > repeatedly, commenting that "In the presence of his country > perishing in its nationality for want of vitality, and the > infusion of fresh forces, the patriot catches at a straw." > 16. Within two years Thakar Singh embroiled his cousin Dalip > in a patriotic scheme involving a plot to restore him to the > throne with Russian and French support. This was regarded as > beginning the liberation of all India from British rule. > 17. K.H. had referred to a "dark satire" in the phrase "jewel > in the crown" and HPB had called British rule "that curse of > every land it fastens itself upon"-- in the very letter where > she welcomed the friendship of the Sirdar and expressed hope of > finding a descendant of Ranjit Singh. > 18. In an April 1884 letter to Alexis Coulomb written in > Paris, HPB said in reference to the Mahatmas that "*there is > one here now and there will be also in London*." This was > during the period when Thakar Singh was attempting to go to > London. > 19. Olcott received an unsigned letter saying that "unless you > put your shoulder to the wheel yourself Kuthumi Lal Singh will > have to disappear off the stage this fall." Later the same > month of June 1883, two more Mahatma letters came to Olcott, > recommending that he "put your whole soul in answer to A.P.S. > [Sinnett] from K.H." and that he "Be careful about letter to > Sinnett. Must be a really *Adeptic* letter." This coincides > with the period when Thakar Singh decided to leave India. > 20. In 1896 Olcott toured the Punjab again. On their first > evening in Lahore, he and his companion Lilian Edger dined at > the home of Sirdar Amrao Singh, described as a "pillar of > strength in our Lahore branch." Amrao Singh had been a > conspirator in the plot to restore Dalip Singh to the throne, > lending a servant for Thakar Singh's use in delivering secret > letters to various maharajas appealing for support. > 21. On the same trip they were visited by Bhai Gurmukh Singh, > who had become the greatest figure in the Singh Sabha movement, > after beginning his career as a protege of Thakar Singh and his > colleagues. > 22. Dayal Singh Majithia, another Sirdar who welcomed Olcott, > Brown, and Domair to Lahore, was present at the TS convention > for 1884 which led to the forming of the Indian National > Congress. Dayal Singh supported Thakar Singh's anti-British schemes, > although Gurmukh Singh opposed them. > > > > This sketches the "house of cards" as it stands at the > close of *The Masters Revealed*, save for the fact that HPB > later wrote Sinnett a letter revealing inside knowledge of the > Dalip Singh conspiracy. Her Russian editor Katkov was a chief > conspirator as well, although HPB may not have known this. In > what sense is it fair to call these fragments of evidence a > house of cards? They certainly do not constitute conclusive > proof of the hypotheses offered, but this is made abundantly > clear in the book. The implication of Mr. Caldwell's phrase, > however, is that the pieces of evidence are themselves flimsy, > and that the construction is such that removal of one causes > the whole structure to collapse. Most of the evidence cited > above is not flimsy; it is derived from historical records, > Theosophical and otherwise, the reliability of which has not > been seriously questioned heretofore. When I do cite Mahatma > letters, the most historically questionable sources, it is in > reference to specific times, places and names related to > information in other sources. While there is room for doubt > about reliability of those sources, they are by no means as > dubious as literature that was written deliberately to create > a particular impression in support of a particular agenda. > That is a crucial qualitative difference between this evidence > and that which I reject as disinformation, as explained in the > following section. But more importantly, the pieces of > evidence for my identifications of Morya and Koot Hoomi are by > and large independent of one another. Theosophical orthodoxy > on the Masters, on the other hand, *does* rely on a domino-like > series of suppositions, starting with the belief that HPB and > Olcott consistently told the truth about them. This is > implicit in Mr. Caldwell's arguments, which portray me as > arbitrarily choosing which evidence to regard as credible > based on what supports my own hypotheses. He gets the cart > before the horse, however, since judgments about the > credibility of various evidence *led to* the construction of > the hypotheses. I did not start this investigation with a set > of beliefs to be defended. If Theosophists like Mr. Caldwell > assume that I did so, it may be because this is their own > approach to the data and that of previous writers on the > subject of the Masters. > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:32:03 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <331a19de.38837357@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 20 Jan 97, Richard Ihle wrote: >Tom Robertson writes--> >I neither knew about any of this [that J.S. has written books and might have >more secrets] nor do I see its relevance. > >RI--> >The relevance is that this is the good kind of person to kiss-up to if you >are ever inclined to kiss-up. I don't have that problem. In the early days of my involvement in the TS, I considered what I would do if a Master materialized during one of our meetings. I may have "kissed-up" to him, then, but now, I believe that's the last thing any kind of superior being would respect. If anyone needs falsehood from me in order to gain my friendship, I wouldn't want theirs. >Perhaps logic is just the slow vapor trail which forms after the >flawless/flawed jet of intuition, perception, or apprehension has flown over. > Perhaps logic is even worthless unless it initially has something valid to >manipulate. Perhaps the better class of both magicians and theosophists >strive first to become ~seers~ rather than expert logicians. Perhaps the >~abandonment~ of overly strict logical thinking is the sine qua non of >magic. You seem to be implying that logic limits something. I do not see how it does that, although I can see how believing that nothing transcends logic would be limiting. But believing that there are truths which transcend logic hardly justifies illogic. Illogic is the sure road to superstition. >TS--> >If Jerry would not tell me other things he knows that I don't know just >because I pointed out how he was illogical in one case, I would consider >him to be responsible for that. > >RI--> >Perhaps if Jerry does not agree that he was illogical, he then might be >tempted to start regarding you as someone who basically ~sees~ things >differently than he does. The laws of logic are quite clear and objective. They aren't very debatable or a matter of opinion. He was clearly illogical. >Perhaps he might tell you some other things; >however, why would he tell you his most ~precious~ things when the >chances are good that you would not be able to see what he means again >and probably end up by calling them illogical too? Logic is not a matter of opinion. It is not subject to whim. It is simple to show who is being logical and who isn't. >(Also, I didn't quite get how you were >using ~responsible~ in the above context. Did you mean ~reprehensible~?) No, I meant responsible. In any conflict between one who is being truthful and one who is not, I consider the one who is not being truthful to be responsible for the conflict. >TR--> >I would rather be able to speak the truth and not learn what anyone has to >say than to have to sell out the truth and charm people into telling me >things. > >RI--> >Easy for you to say. When it comes to "truth," I wish I could be as cocksure >of anything as you may be of everything We are probably talking about two different things when we are using the word "truth" in the contexts in which we are using them. I am using it in the context of logical truth. There is no great mystery about that. If I said that women are more compassionate than men, meaning that the average woman is more compassionate than the average man, and if someone else concludes from that that I mean that I believe that no man has any compassion, that is straightforwardly and easily demonstrably illogical. Other "truths," such as perhaps the way in which individuality is an illusion, are not so clear to me, as they are more intuitive. I am probably no more "cocksure" about such truths than you are. > Anyway, perhaps we "sell out" truth to some extent every time we try to put >it into words, so what's the big sacrifice in being charming or silent? Blatantly selling out the truth by being illogical costs one the right to claim to be a seeker of truth. >. . . rightly or wrongly, I sometimes just get the feeling I could take the >lunch money of any guy who can only syllogize his way around the ring Correct intuition will trump correct logic any time. But incorrect logic makes correct intuition impossible. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:01:45 -0500 From: "Patrick Alessandra Jr." Subject: Esoteric Astrology (principles & the future) Message-ID: <32E35EA7.131F@earthlink.net> Hello, Esoteric Astrology (principles & the future) www page is at http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/future.html Love & Light, Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D. -- *** A.Priori / 6524 San Felipe #323 / Houston, TX 77057 USA *** aprioripa@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:39:02 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Alice Bailey - What attracts people to her writings? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970120143902.006ab608@mail.eden.com> Hi, I am re posting this msg. From what I have seen, as far as India is concerned, Alice Bailey's teaching have not had any response. Even if there was some, it is very very minimal. But it appears that in the West, there has been large response. There must be a reason for this differential responses. Any one would care to try to answer my query? MKRamadoss Murray wrote: Whatever the intellectual components to the Boston situation, I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but there is truth in other dimensions too - emotional and subjective, for instance. In the 30 or so years I've been in the TS, the Bailey question has been one of the biggest dividing factors. The bitterest fights in the NZ TS scene have been underpinned by distrust of versus loyalty to Alice Bailey, with people in the E.S. usually being distrustful of her, in my experience. I do not know much about Alice Bailey's philosophy and I am curious to find out what it is that attracts individuals as well as loyalty to her. May be some one who has a first hand understanding/experience in observing what has been going on, it would be in interesting to get a feedback. Such feedback also can throw light on the drawbacks of the other philosophies - HPB, Judge, AB, CWL, GSA, CJ etc. etc. When the issues are very clearly understood, all distrust and all the fall outs of it will be gone, hopefully. True searchers of Truth, will be loyal to Truth and Truth along and will not follow any particular personality. After all all of us are students searching for Truth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:45:29 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970120144529.006c5ca0@mail.eden.com> At 01:29 PM 1/19/97 -0500, you wrote: >And one should never forget that an interesting falsehood is better than a >boring truth. > >Chuck the Heretic > Chuck: I could not pass this one. Once you start with a falsehood (interesting or not), then it will lead to further falsehoods since there will be holes in the falsehood and so there will be a chain of falsehoods. To keep up requires extra ordinary mental effort because, each falsehood should not contradict any previous ones. And also, if the falsehood is told on a person to person basis, then one has to keep track of what falsehood was told to whom and also this applies to the chain of falsehoods. It is very demanding on the memory and exercises the brain very well. So it appears falsehoods are very challenging. A truth is simple and does not change and no burden on the memory and does not need much of a mental effort. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:22:34 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <32fc8af6.12247011@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Mon, 20 Jan 97, M K Ramadoss wrote: >At 01:29 PM 1/19/97 -0500, you wrote: >>And one should never forget that an interesting falsehood is better than a >>boring truth. >> >>Chuck the Heretic >> > >Chuck: > >I could not pass this one. > >Once you start with a falsehood (interesting or not), then it will lead to >further falsehoods since there will be holes in the falsehood and so there >will be a chain of falsehoods. To keep up requires extra ordinary mental >effort because, each falsehood should not contradict any previous ones. And >also, if the falsehood is told on a person to person basis, then one has to >keep track of what falsehood was told to whom and also this applies to the >chain of falsehoods. It is very demanding on the memory and exercises the >brain very well. So it appears falsehoods are very challenging. > >A truth is simple and does not change and no burden on the memory and does >not need much of a mental effort. > >MKR > Still, deception is often more interesting. My favorite movies are the ones in which deception runs the deepest. Neil Simon's "Murder by Death" made fun of it by taking it to ridiculous extremes, but I love to be able to watch movies 10 times and still be challenged in trying to figure out who was deceiving whom, and how. Deception is part of what makes poker and other games so interesting. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 11:06:35 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Rebuttal on roots Message-ID: <199701201606.LAA08517@leo.vsla.edu> Dear ones, Continuing delays in getting my rebuttal posted on the website of Dr. Lane have led me to post it as a long file on theos-roots. If anyone wants a copy forwarded to them personally because they're not on roots, let me know. This will be (the roots post, not this one) my last appearance as a "Theosophical author," at least in this millennium, and my last public response to criticism of my previous works. If anyone wants to contact me privately with questions or comments, feel free. I won't be staying on roots long, and won't participate in discussion there. I am back on theos-l after getting enough work done on the Cayce ms. to resume a less frantic schedule. Will be posting in a new vein on subjects that transcend ideological factionalism, I hope (if anything can do so on this list!). Mika, did you say you had questions about my work on Cayce? I'll be glad to address them now. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:07:41 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <970120115819_1210986492@emout01.mail.aol.com> Doss, It is the unchanging nature of truth that makes it so boring, whereas with falsehoods we can have tons of fun changing them as we go along. Once one is freed from the necessity for truth an entire universe of possibilities opens up. Now all I have to do is figure out how to change the direction of the earth's orbit and maybe then the Cubs can get into the World Series. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:20:07 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (Benjamin Mark Pybus) Subject: [Bristol Lodge] Message-ID: Alan, As soon as I read your msg. in the last digest I was deeply shocked. It sounds very scary that so-called theosophists can actually act in such a fashion. Would you be willing to state who the President of the English Section was at the time? I haven't been in the TS that long - not quite 2 years in fact - but I've never even considered such outrageous behaviour ever to be possible. Perhaps I'm just too innocent and naive! As a member of Newcastle lodge I can tell you now that such things don't happen there, but we are a small lodge! When you mentioned "that organisation" were you referring to Bristol Lodge or the the TS generally? I have to say that those who I have met in London do not seem to fit such descriptions as the lodge president you describe. Lastly, I can quite understand your sentiments but please don't leave the TS, if that was your intention - we need people as yourself to help change such an ugly "shadow". Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:07:46 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: ES/TS Message-ID: <9701202107.AA11579@toto.csustan.edu> >Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote: >> >>More basic to all of this is the argument I have raised over >>and over again: the TS is only superficially a democratic >> organization. Ordinary members might occasionally get elected >>to one or another office, but the control of the TS is with a >>tight group and the ES is over that. > MKR > Thanks for your feedback. > > Is this not the kind of situation that Olcott being a smart >lawyer and man with a lot of practical experience and common >sense and one who cared so much for the TS he helped to build, >feared that may happen down the road, when the ES was getting >formed? JHE Yes. I think this situation turned out to be exactly what Olcott feared most. He agreed to support HPB's formation of the ES under the proviso that it not be connected with the TS. Probably because Besant became the sole head of the ES in 1895, Olcott did not support her as his successor to the Presidency. To have Besant as both the President and the Outer Head creates exactly the Popery the 1900 letter warns against and what Olcott most feared. Of course, after Olcott was dead, a miraculous "account" of the Masters appearing at Olcott's death bed, telling him that they want Besant to succeed him seems to be a little convenient for my taste. The story sounds very solid on the surface--two eye witnesses and all--but falls apart upon close examination. But the story won Besant's election, so it served its purpose. When Ernest Wood ran against Arundale in 1934, Jinarajadasa and Leadbeater favored the latter. Besant was dead. But Jinarajadasa, "in the interest of truth" (he explained), had a letter published, written by Besant, saying that the Masters wanted Arundale. George Arundale, of course was married to Rukmini. Her extended family has been in control of Adyar ever since--Jinarajadasa's presidency and John Coates' short presidency notwithstanding. MKR > > I would welcome anyone on theos-l, who can convince all of >us here that the above reading of the situation is *NOT* true. >We have, it appears, a *emperor* has no clothes situation!!! > > Your mileage and direction may vary, but would like to know. > >M K Ramadoss > JHE Yes, I would be very interested in such evidence. MKR > >PS: Again as I revisited the 1900 letter from Master KH, his >comment to >AB about popery and unnecessary secrecy seems to fit in, IMHO. JHE You might also look at letter 19 in Jinarajadasa's collection of letters. This is the one that fell on Olcott's head while he was on a ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It was written during the heat of the controversy over the formation of the ES. Considered with the 1900 letter, I think the two letters throw a great deal of light on these matters. AB >What is distressing about the Librarian is that owing to his >having to sleep in a Salvation Army Hostel where they throw >everyone out for the daytime, he had been allowed over many >years to use the Lodge premises during the day, and thus had >long term use of the facilities (heating, kitchen, etc.) which >on the face of it was a very "theosophical" and compassionate >attitude on the part of the Lodge. > >So they threw him on to the street (figuratively speaking) just >as the local temparature dropped to 3 to 5 degrees below >freezing. And this is a man who can almost recite verbatim the >info on root races, rounds, chains, etc. JHE I've seen this kind of pathology before. A common scenario I have noticed that leads up to these fall outs is the presence of a knowledgeable and progressive member who threatens those in control of the Lodge by advocating major changes that would make the Lodge more attractive to the public. On the other hand, I have noticed that most Lodges are extraordinarily tolerant of and welcome marginal personalities that would have been shunned in other social circles. This is done in the name of Brotherhood. I think that a more important difference is that marginal personalities are not a threat to take over the Lodge. They also have the added advantage of driving away the more capable and socially adept people who might have otherwise joined. I don't know the nature of your situation outside of what you described, but it fits the above pattern. The key (but usually hidden) dynamic almost always concerns control issues. AB >So far as I am concerned, the Bristol Lodge of the Theosophical >Society in England is everything a theosophical lodge >subscribing to the three objects should never be allowed to >become. They also avoid, so far as I understand the law on >these matters, paying local taxes (rates) by presenting >themselves locally (Bristol) as a "Religious Denomination of >Theosophists." I understand other lodges in England also do >this. > >How a Society which professes allegiance to no creed can allow >such claims to exist is beyond me. In the first edition of "Key >to Theosophy" a judge even ruled that by its own definition, the >nature of the Society via its objects prevented it from being >regarded as a religious organization. Not surprisingly perhaps, >this section is omitted from later editions. > >Whilst I am still nominally a member of this disgraceful >organization, I no longer consider myself to be a part of it, >and now regard it with nothing but contempt. JHE The New York Lodge had a similar issue some ten years ago. The city went after the Lodge for property taxes, which are a lot in Manhattan. The solution was to try and register the TS as a religious organization. It seems that the TS holds to very high principles, but they become very secondary when money and power are involved. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:33:04 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: [Bristol Lodge] Message-ID: On Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Benjamin Mark Pybus wrote: > Alan, > > As soon as I read your msg. in the last digest I was deeply shocked. It > sounds very scary that so-called theosophists can actually act in such a > fashion. Would you be willing to state who the President of the English > Section was at the time? I haven't been in the TS that long - not quite 2 > years in fact - but I've never even considered such outrageous behaviour > ever to be possible. Perhaps I'm just too innocent and naive! As a member of > Newcastle lodge I can tell you now that such things don't happen there, but > we are a small lodge! When you mentioned "that organisation" were you > referring to Bristol Lodge or the the TS generally? I have to say that those > who I have met in London do not seem to fit such descriptions as the lodge > president you describe. Lastly, I can quite understand your sentiments but > please don't leave the TS, if that was your intention - we need people as > yourself to help change such an ugly "shadow". > > Ben > Ben: I completely agree with your msg. How long one has been a member need not correlate with their simple understanding of what Theosophy stands for and its application in daily life. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 12:14:06 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Rebuttal Part 3 Message-ID: <199701201714.MAA18638@leo.vsla.edu> > PART IV > > > > In this section, Mr. Caldwell says that my conclusion > concerning the Tibetan cover story about Morya and Koot Hoomi > is an "invention" used to explain away any evidence or > testimony contradictory to my hypotheses about them. In fact, > well before I reached any hypotheses about Ranbir Singh and > Thakar Singh, the Tibetan claims made by HPB had impressed me > as highly suspicious and a likely cover story concealing the > real location of the adepts. This was a theme of several other > researchers in the 1980s, including Ian Brown, an initiate > into Gelugpa Tibetan Buddhism, and Robert Gilbert, a respected > esoteric historian. My paper at the 1986 Theosophical History > Conference was devoted to this theme, but the focus was then > Sufi connections rather than Hindu maharajas or Sikh > reformers. Mr. Caldwell also assumes for some reason that I > "want" to believe that Mohini's investigation into Tibetan > "Koothoompas" was bogus, not believing me able to reach > conclusions that are not what I want to believe. In fact, my > Theosophical beliefs were repeatedly challenged in the > course of research and writing, and I reached many conclusions > that were not particularly welcome. Mohini's short-lived > affiliation with the TS and his later total repudiation of it > led me to doubt the extent to which he was sincerely persuaded > by his own "investigation"; the Mahatma letters to him do have > a questionable tone, as in "Make it as strong as you can." Mr > Caldwell's point is well taken, however, concerning the > unlikelihood that Mohini would concoct testimony using the > names of prominent friends and relations as witnesses. But > whether or not the peddler and Brahmacharin were genuine > witnesses themselves is the more important question. No other > evidence of "Koothoompas" having come to light, their > testimonies remain suspicious and possibly staged. > > > > PART V > > > > Here Mr. Caldwell provides ample evidence to associate the > name "Kashmir" with Koot Hoomi rather than Morya, and points > out my careless mistake concerning the drawing by HPB which I > took to show only one adept but in fact shows two, "Morya" and > "Kashmere." My mistake was in taking the central drawing for a > second depiction of Olcott (his higher self, perhaps) rather > than a portrait of an adept. Their identical beards in the two > drawings led to that error. Mr. Caldwell's research in > Olcott's diary and other sources I did not consult both > clarifies my error and raises another question. "Kashmir" was > a standard way of referring to Maharaja Ranbir Singh (as seen > in a Mahatma letter, illustrating the general practice of > calling maharajas by the names of their kingdoms) and Judge > was being told that a Master "Kashmere" was one of the secret > sponsors of the TS. Olcott's diary identifies K.H. with > "Kashmir," a name that was generally kept secret. Even though > other evidence makes Ranbir Singh seem more related to Morya > than Koot Hoomi, Mr. Caldwell's research points out a link > between the name "Kashmir" and the latter adept. This is > presented by him as conclusive proof of my scholarly ineptitude > and the falseness of my hypotheses. But another look at his > findings from a different perspective shows them to be > supportive of my approach. In the world of Olcott and HPB, one > adept name is sometimes found shading into another without any > clear sense of what is happening behind the scenes. The lines > between "John King" and "Serapis" are not entirely clear, while > both "Sahib" and "Maha Sahib" seem to refer to Serapis in > some places but not others. If the name "Kashmir" was being > bandied about privately as the secret name for one of the two > main Indian Mahatmas sponsoring the TS, this is significant > evidence for the possibility that the historical person known > as "Kashmir" was one of those hidden sponsors. If this > indicates confusion between the personae of Morya and Koot > Hoomi, that is not in itself fatal to my hypotheses. Only in > Mr. Caldwell's orthodox worldview do all references to the same > Mahatma have to be taken as accurate references to the same > historical person. If Morya and Koot Hoomi are both composite > characters, as I maintain, they can overlap without any crisis > resulting for my hypotheses about their primary prototypes. > Mr. Caldwell has spent at least three and a half years > hunting for "numerous serious mistakes and inaccuracies" in my > three books, and has come up with five minor errors to which I > will freely admit: one misreading of an illustration and its > captions, one case of assuming that two passages refer to the > same person when they might not, one question expressing > suspicion about the meaning of a phrase in a Mahatma letter > which on further inspection seems unjustified, one date that > was three days off, and one case of confusing the publication > history of one work with that of another by the same author. > Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. None of > these mistakes bears any weight in the total argument, and if > all the passages containing them were removed the books (over > 800 pages collectively) would be half a page shorter and > substantively unchanged. Therefore the "house of cards" > analogy, in Mr. Caldwell's destructive meaning, does not > withstand scrutiny. The rest of his charges amount to a > refusal to acknowledge any basis for weighing different > testimonies about the Masters and judging some as less credible > than others, insisting that all be taken at face value. > > > > PART VI > > > > Here Mr. Caldwell attempts to read my mind, saying that > "Johnson wants to believe that Das gave certain Tibetan > manuscripts to Blavatsky," and later calling my admitted > speculations about this possibility "assertions." He goes on > to say that "the Master M., coming to visit HPB and Olcott at > Bombay, *does not* and *cannot* exist in Johnson's own version > of Theosophical `reality.'" My version of Theosophical reality > is open-ended and ever-changing, so it hardly constrains my > thinking in the way that Mr. Caldwell's version appears to > contrain his own. In fact, I have no particular > reason to prefer one explanation to another concerning who came > to Bombay that day, or about how Blavatsky's writings became so > much better informed about Tibetan matters in the last ten > years of her life. But in the latter case it makes more sense > to look at events during those years for an explanation; if > she had acquired such information years before why are her > early writings so ill-informed about Tibetan Buddhism? There > are coincidences of timing between Das's trip to Tibet and > HPB's remarks about access to the "Chohan Lama" which led to my > proposing the hypothesis that the latter is a name for the > Sengchen Tulku, Das's host in Tibet. But this is only a > possibility, and others exist; I have no strong feelings in the > matter. As for Mr. Caldwell's questions about why I consider > the quoted passages from HPB and K.H. about the visit to Sikkim > to be disinformation, and why various claims about M. and K.H. > living in Tibet appear to belong to the same category, I offer > two compelling reasons. These are both mentioned in > *Initiates* but perhaps the import of these pieces of evidence > was insufficiently stressed. In a letter to Mary > Hollis-Billings written in 1880, HPB wrote that the home of > K.H. was "in Little Tibet [Ladakh] and now belongs to > Kashmir." She added that Morya frequently stayed at this > house. Along the same lines, Damodar wrote to Judge that he > had made an astral journey to K.H.'s house at "the upper end of > Kashmir at the foot of the Himalayas." He went on to describe > the "Chief Central Place" where the "Great Hall" is located, > containing the "Chief's Throne" where "all those of our > section who are found deserving of initiation into the > Mysteries have to go for their final ceremony." This was > alleged to be in "an open plane in L----h." Was the home of > K.H. in Ladakh, Kashmir, or Shigatse? HPB tells > Hollis-Billings Ladakh, but tells Sinnett and Hartmann Shigatse. > Damodar tells Judge it is in Kashmir. Was the headquarters of > the Masters in Ladakh or Tibet? Damodar tells Judge one thing > in 1884, but Mohini writes another in *The Theosophist* the > very same year. Such discrepancies suggest that whatever the > truth of the matter, Theosophical claims about Tibet are > riddled with disinformation. > > > > THEOSOPHICAL ORTHODOXY'S HOUSE OF CARDS > > > > In three books that consist overwhelmingly of historical > and biographical information, the number of real errors Mr. > Caldwell has found in three and a half years of searching is miniscule. > I wish the mistakes were nonexistent, but feel confident that if > Mr. Caldwell were to apply the same pedantic scrutiny to any > other three books on Theosophical history he would find at > least an equal number. (Far more, in the most successful > recent book on the subject, *Madame Blavatsky's Baboon*.) My > work was rejected by Theosophical University Press (after ten > months consideration), Theosophical Publishing House (after a > year) and Point Loma Publications (after a year). None of > these publishers, despite the long waits involved, offered me a > single substantive criticism of my research or any of my > hypotheses. It cannot be said that I failed to make a sincere > effort to have my works scrutinized and corrected by > Theosophical authorities. > Since I became a Theosophist in 1978, there have been > (according to the OCLC database) 585 books published about > Theosophy. Some of these are reprints and translations of > existing books, but many are new releases. Among those > discussing the Masters were Marion Meade's *Madame Blavatsky: > the Woman Behind the Myth*, Peter Washington's *Madame > Blavatsky's Baboon*, Gregory Tillett's *The Elder Brother*, and > Bruce Campbell's *Ancient Wisdom Revived*, all of which assume > or imply that HPB's Masters are entirely mythical. In another > category were Jean Overton Fuller's *Blavatsky and Her > Teachers*, Sylvia Cranston's *HPB*, and Noel Richard-Nafarre's > *Madame Blavatsky ou la reponse du Sphinx*, all of which assume > that HPB's claims about the Masters are entirely reliable. In > yet another grouping are Elizabeth Clare Prophet's *The Great > White Brotherhood in the Culture, History, and Religion of > America* and Benjamin Creme's *The Reappearance of the Christ > and the Masters of Wisdom*, whose authors allege that the > Masters of HPB are currently communicating through them. > Finally, there is Joscelyn Godwin's *The Theosophical > Enlightenment*, which basically shares my perspective on the > Masters as fictionalizations of real people, but does not dwell > on the topic or endorse specific hypotheses about various > Masters. Of all the recent books discussing HPB and her > Masters, *The Masters Revealed* was the only one attacked > vigorously (in two lengthy and scathing reviews) by John Algeo, the > president of the Theosophical Society in America, similar in > tone to Mr. Caldwell's diatribe. *The Theosophist* of Adyar, > edited by TS international president Radha Burnier, ran a > non-review by Dara Eklund entitled "The Masters Revealed" which > never acknowledged the book's existence overtly, but implicitly > pronounced its goal of historical identifications chimerical. > And, of course, my book is the only one to receive years of > relentless nitpicking from Mr. Caldwell. Finally, I am the > only Theosophical author who has been denounced as "pious" and > "deferential" toward HPB in the pages of a prestigious literary > journal. What is going on here? Why does my work make so many > people so angry or fearful? Why has Mr. Caldwell devoted such passionate > effort to discrediting my work, at the same time that he > promotes as reliable almost every other book on Theosophical > history produced by Theosophists? More puzzling to me, why > does he virtually ignore the large body of works that are > hostile to Blavatsky and dismissive of the Masters' existence, > while spending years publicly bombarding me, a basically friendly > Theosophical author, with blame and disdain? During the last > three and a half years that I have been regularly attacked by > Mr. Caldwell, these questions have arisen again and again, and > they remain perplexing. One likely incentive suggests itself: > Mr. Caldwell has ingratiated himself with Theosophical > orthodoxy by leading the charge against my work. Since he and > John Algeo have emerged as the chief denouncers of my books, > Dr. Algeo has announced that under his editorship Theosophical > Publishing House will reprint Mr. Caldwell's compilation of > laudatory accounts of HPB. Theirs is to be the official party > line (in which criticism of HPB is minimized) whereas my work > is to be the officially repudiated "house of cards." > The behavior of Mr. Caldwell and Dr. Algeo in response to > my work conveys an air of desperation. Not content to point > out a few flaws and praise a few strengths, they ignore the > evidence on behalf of the hypotheses offered ("No evidence" is > repeated like a mantram in Dr. Algeo's reviews) and attempt to > demolish my credibility. Such extreme tactics directed toward > a member of the same spiritual organization suggests that they > perceive the stakes to be very high. Why is my work perceived > by them as more "dangerous" than others which address the same > topic? What they are defending has all the earmarks of a true > "house of cards": a complex structure resting on a chain of > inferences and rooted in demonstrably false assumptions. (That > HPB and Olcott's accounts of the Masters are consistent and > reliable, most notably.) My hypotheses provide a paradigm > shift in approaches to the Masters, a shift that is extremely > unwelcome in orthodox circles. If the Theosophical movement > advances toward recognizing the need to sort out truth from > fiction on the topic of the Masters, many things become > subject to question. Most notably for Mme. Burnier and Dr. > Algeo, these are the legitimacy of the Esoteric Section based > on its alleged sponsorship by the Masters, since the TS remains > dominated by this secret inner group. Most importantly for Mr. > Caldwell, it might become necessary to reevaluate the spiritual > status of Mme. Blavatsky and her Masters and the authority of > texts he considers sacred. In order to forestall such > developments, they have chosen to kill the messenger through > an intellectualized form of character assassination. I can > only hope that perceptive readers will recognize such tactics > and what they reveal about those who use them. They strain > at the gnat of my minor errors, while swallowing the camel > of HPB's total credibility. This is their only strategy for > propping up the house of cards in which orthodox Theosophists > have been living for the past century. Until they can offer > their own explanation of the evidence I have presented, and > arguments for their interpretation of HPB, it will be obvious that they > are more interested in defending dogmas than in searching for truth. > This, in the words of the Gospel of Matthew, is the behavior of > "blind guides." > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 12:29:09 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Rebuttal 2 Message-ID: <199701201729.MAA20152@leo.vsla.edu> > GUILT AND INNOCENCE > > > > The backbone of Mr. Caldwell's argument is that I am > guilty of a variety of authorial sins great and small. Faced > with his barrage of blame, I will focus on the highlights of > each section of his critique, responding to charges that are > particularly crucial but trying to keep the length reasonable. > My books are far from perfect, and some of his objections are > well-founded. But the level of outrage Mr. Caldwell conveys at > my few faux pas betrays a fierce blame that is essentially > moral and spiritual rather than scholarly. In my concluding > remarks on Theosophical orthodoxy I will explore the reasons > for the disproportionate blame and outrage my books have > aroused in Mr. Caldwell and others. > > > > PART I > > > > Mr. Caldwell expresses some confusion as to whether my > hypotheses about Morya and Koot Hoomi are a "suggestion," as I > express it in one place and Joscelyn Godwin also puts it, or > whether I claim to have presented a "persuasive case." He > misreads the passage which states that HPB provided enough > information to make "a persuasive case" for identifying them > with Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh respectively. I never > claimed to have *presented* a persuasive case; the passage in > question simply meant that the evidence in Blavatsky's > writings was persuasive enough *to me* that I felt obliged to > offer these hypotheses as *suggestions* in my books. > "Persuasive" is an extremely subjective term, and I would never > have imagined that Theosophists of a certain mindset would find > any amount of evidence persuasive concerning the Masters' > prototypes. On the other hand, many non-Theosophists have > been convinced by my books that Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh > are persuasive enough as prototypes to prove that Morya and > Koot Hoomi are not *entirely* fictional, as has long been > assumed outside Theosophical ranks. > As to my claiming to have proved to the satisfaction of > many scholars my "thesis concerning M. and K.H.," again Mr. > Caldwell misreads the intended meaning. In this passage from > an Internet posting, I simply stated that *if* many scholars > were satisfied that I had proven Morya and Koot Hoomi to be > fictionalizations of *other people* this would not detract > from the truth of HPB's spiritual teachings. My impression > from feedback received is that most readers are persuaded of > the fictionalization hypothesis-- that M. and K.H. are based on > real people but that HPB's characterizations of them are not > historically accurate. This is not the same as claiming that > most readers are persuaded about the specific status of > Ranbir Singh and Thakar Singh as prototypes; I myself remain > unsure of the extent to which M. and K.H. are based on these > prototypes, on other people, or on HPB's literary imagination. > Mr. Caldwell accuses me of omitting or downplaying > evidence that shows deficiencies in my hypotheses. > I suspect this is true of all authors on the subject, > but cannot help wondering if any writers on Blavatsky are > *less* guilty of it than I. To cite only recent authors, > neither Sylvia Cranston on the orthodox side of the fence nor > Peter Washington on the skeptical side show nearly as much > appreciation for ambiguities in the evidence as I have. Nor do > they or comparable writers show any respect for or interest in > opposing views. Repeatedly my books admit to the tentativeness > of the conclusions offered, which is a real innovation in > literature about Blavatsky. Yet I am denounced by Mr. Caldwell > and Dr. Algeo (in *The American Theosophist* and *Theosophical > History*) as deceptively claiming a certainty that is > unjustified by the evidence. In light of the books such as Ms. > Cranston's that they cite as exemplary, I cannot help doubting > their fairness and objectivity. I repeatedly and explicitly > proclaim the ambiguity of the evidence and the tentativeness of > my conclusions, yet get blamed for being a "true believer" in > my own hypotheses by Theosophists who show themselves to be > *real* true believers in attitude and action. Something > strange is happening here, and I can only conclude that it is > related to projection. I invite readers to survey the entire > body of literature attempting to explain HPB's relations with > the Masters, and name a book that is less dogmatic in approach > than mine. > In the case of an alleged visit by Master Morya to Olcott > on July 15, 1879, described by the Colonel in his diary, Mr. > Caldwell asks "And if the real flesh and blood Morya was at > Bombay on that particular July day while Maharaja Ranbir Singh > was residing in Kashmir, cannot one reasonably conclude that > Ranbir Singh has `no connection' whatsoever to the Master > Morya?" An assumption is buried in this question, and it is at > the heart of Mr. Caldwell's criticisms. This is that there is *one* > "real flesh and blood Morya" rather than several. Should we assume that all > stories told about Morya are in fact about the same person? In > fact, this is logically impossible, as shown in this passage > from *The Masters Revealed*: > HPB told at least four distinct versions of her > acquaintance with the Master she met in her youth in London. > In *Caves and Jungles of Hindustan* he is "Gulab-Singh," the > Hindu ruler of a small Central Indian state. According to this > version, her first contact with him after their London meeting > was through a letter he sent her in New York over twenty years > later. The most frequently repeated story was that M. was a > Buddhist living in Tibet where she studied with him for a long > period in the late 1860s. But in yet another variation, she > wrote to Prince Dondukov-Korsakov that her first contact with > him after their London meeting was a letter he sent her in > Odessa many years later, directing her to go to India. In this > version, she never once saw the Master although he directed her > itinerary by mail for more than two years. They were reunited > at last in Yokahama, Japan, where he had summoned her from New > York. Finally, HPB wrote to her Aunt Nadyezhda that her Master > was a Nepalese Buddhist living in Ceylon, with whom she had > renewed acquaintance via a letter he wrote her in New York. > With four mutually contradictory versions of the same > character, all that can be concluded is that most if not all of > HPB's stories about him were false. > It would be more accurate to say that the conflicting > Morya stories cannot be true *and* about the same person, > although they may contain true bits and pieces about several. > But Mr. Caldwell, Dr. Algeo and other Theosophical critics seem > quite unwilling to face the obvious and undeniable truth > revealed by the above passage. Either HPB manufactured most of > these stories about Morya, allegedly her personal Master, out > of whole cloth, or she combined stories about several different > prototypes in different versions to different people. In light > of this clearcut evidence, Mr. Caldwell's argument that one > story about Norya which cannot plausibly be about Ranbir Singh proves > that the maharaja has "no connection whatsoever to the Master > Morya" is extremely naive. His failure to address any of the > major evidence on which I base my identifications is presumably > due to his belief that this is unnecessary since he can come up > with conflicting details elsewhere. But according to my > composite model, conflicting details can be drawn from other > prototypes or from imagination, and do not permit us to ignore > the rest of the evidence. > Like Frederick Crews in the New York Review of Books, Mr. > Caldwell mistakenly assumes that I "accept the accuracy and truthfulness > of Olcott's account" of his meeting with Ooton Liatto and friend. To cite > a story without comment is not to endorse its accuracy, and I > have strong doubts about rain being made to fall inside a > room. I would presume, however, that Olcott really met two > men, one of them at least a Cypriot, and wrote about it to C.C. > Massey. Beyond that, one can only guess what might have really > happened during the visit and what role Olcott's suggestibility > may have played. Since HPB mentioned in her scrapbook that the > Cypriot Hilarion was in New York at the same time, this led me > to hypothesize that Olcott's "Ooton Liatto" was the same > person. Mr. Caldwell asserts that I "assume the accuracy of > this 1875-76 account by Olcott even when there is no other > evidence to confirm it." In fact, as he comments in his own > previous paragraph, HPB also noted the visit of Hilarion at the > same time and place, which is supporting evidence. Both of > these pieces of evidence, a private letter and a private > scrapbook entry, are less likely to be disinformation than > is material designed for public consumption, as the testimonies > concerning Morya and K.H. in Tibet and Sikkim were. The time > factor also weighs in favor of the reliability of the > evidence, since in 1875 and 1876 there was not an elaborate and > well-publicized body of claims about Mahatmas to be justified > and defended, as there was after 1881. > Mc. Caldwell makes a false accusation in his account of > our correspondence concerning Olcott's diary entry about the > visit of Morya to Bombay on August 4, 1880. By 1993 I had > condensed *In Search of the Masters* to about a third of its > former length, and had long since deleted the speculation that > Jamal ad-Din was the Master described in *Old Diary Leaves* as > visiting at that time. I wrote this to Mr. Caldwell when he > informed me of the diary entry giving the name of the adept in > question, which he appears to have forgotten. When he writes > "Had I not provided him with that crucial piece of evidence, > would Johnson have repeated the incident in *The Masters > Revealed* with the same speculation that this Mahatma was > Afghani?" I can answer with a definite no. Proof of this can > be seen in the manuscript of *TMR* which had already been > submitted to SUNY Press at the time. More to the point is the > philosophical issue at hand, when Mr. Caldwell writes "And if > it is unlikely that this Adept is the Maharaja of Kashmir, then > is it not fair to suggest that Johnson's hypothesis concerning > Ranbir Singh/Morya is also unbelievable?" The answer to this > question, as before, is "Only if one assumes that all > references to Morya are in fact accurate *and* refer to the > same historical person." I have shown that this cannot > possibly be so in the case of HPB's references to this Master; > why should one expect Olcott to be any more consistent and > reliable? Particularly so when we consider the question of > "Gulab-Singh" being equated with Morya by HPB but portrayed as > a different adept by Olcott. We are truly in a hall of magic > mirrors, in which simplistic assumptions are bound to mislead. > Mr. Caldwell simplistically assumes that testimonies about the > Masters by HPB and Olcott must be either totally true or > totally false. This assumption underlies his entire assault on > my work, and does not withstand scrutiny. > It is worth mentioning at this point that I traveled to > India for six weeks during research for my first book, which > was then under consideration by Theosophical Publishing House-- > Wheaton. That publisher took a year before rejecting the > manuscript. During that year, after traveling halfway around > the world, I was refused access to Col. Olcott's diary and > other contents of the Adyar archives by TS President Radha > Burnier. Her message was that I could not have archives access > because there was no archivist on duty. Meanwhile, three other > researchers there at the same time, working on less > controversial topics, were provided archives access. Mr. > Caldwell chided me later for not considering the evidence of > that diary, but never offered to let me see a copy or explain > how he obtained one. Had I been given the opportunity to > examine it by Mme. Burnier or Mr. Caldwell, I would have given > much attention to its contents. To this day I have yet to see > it. > In his reference to my description of Olcott's account of > meeting a Master at the Golden Temple, Mr. Caldwell notes that > I assume this to be the same character described by HPB in > *Caves and Jungles* as Ram-Ranjit-Das, also a Sikh aristocrat > with a role at the temple. He is quite right, as I was indeed > guilty of making an unjustified assumption since the passages > could be referring to two different people. On the other hand, > until Mr. Caldwell explains the difference between "figuring > among the guardians" and "being one of the guardians" I stand > by my interpretation of the phrase. Moreover, I absolutely do > not assume that these passages refer to Thakar Singh > Sandhanwalia, as is proven in the very passage in which Mr. > Caldwell accuses me of that. How could I write "One might find > dozens of names to choose from" while assuming that the > passages refer to a particular person? I very explicitly made > the point that I offer only a hypothesis, that other candidates > are possibilities, but that there are reasons to consider > Thakar Singh the most likely. This is one of several cases > where my world of infinite shades of grey gets caricatured by > translation into Mr. Caldwell's world of black and white. > This is further seen in his argument that I "accept the > accuracy and truthfulness" of Olcott's and Blavatsky's accounts > "at face value" in some places, which "delights" him, but not > others. This is a misreading. To accept their relevance as > evidence that is probably true is quite another matter. At > any rate, here we again find the heart of Mr. Caldwell's > implicit argument, which is that the Mahatma letters as well as > the statements of Olcott and Blavatsky about the Masters must > all be accepted as gospel truth, or all be rejected as lies. > His intense hostility toward my work, combined with his near > silence about anti-Theosophical writers, suggests that he is > not nearly as offended by total rejection of Theosophical > claims as he is by a selective evaluation of the evidence. But > the responsibility of any historian faced with a body of > confusing and internally contradictory information is to > *weigh* his sources, which I have done. When I discount the > portion of K.H.'s letter of October 29, 1880 in which he refers > to crossing over to Ladakh on his way home from Tibet as > "disinformation" there is a reason why passages in the same > letter about his spending time with HPB in Amritsar are taken > as more plausible. This is not because I have some attachment > to the Punjab or aversion to Tibet, as Mr. Caldwell might > guess. There are abundant reasons for regarding references to > the Punjab and Kashmir in the Mahatma letters and the writings > of HPB as primarily historical, while suspecting the > references to Tibet as being primarily fictional. These will > be discussed below. > In his passage about the visit of Olcott, Brown and > Damodar to Lahore, Mr. Caldwell states that I "believe Olcott's > testimony at face value." Not quite; for example I have strong suspicions > about how a message formed inthe palm of Olcott's hand. Furthermore, > Mr. Caldwell's passage "Of course, it was Thakar Singh" is a total > misrepresentation of the spirit of my work; the passage in question contains > no such words. I have simply stated that Thakar Singh is, to > date, the most likely candidate I have found. What I do contend is > that a visit occurring during a journey that is well grounded > in historical evidence, documented by three witnesses who > portray the Master as arriving and departing in a quite > corporeal manner, is much more solid evidence relevant to > identifying K.H. than is found elsewhere in Theosophical > literature. Furthermore, the coincidence of Olcott, Brown and > Damodar spending their days in Lahore in the company of Sirdars > and Singh Sabha leaders, then receiving nocturnal visits from > Koot Hoomi and Djual Kul, suggests a link between the Singh > Sabha and these Masters. The following week, the same kind of > Mahatmic contacts continued while the three travelers were in > Ranbir Singh's palace, suggesting a similar link with him. > That does not mean that any evidence can be accepted or > rejected at face value; only weighed in comparison to other > evidence as more or less credible and relevant. > On pp. 14-15, Mr. Caldwell notes that I mistakenly > identified W.T. Brown's pamphlet *Some Experiences in India* as > having never been published before, and took this as implying > that is was possibly withheld under orders of HPB and Olcott. > This was indeed a careless mistake, resulting from reading > elsewhere about a work by Brown that was never published and > confusing the two. > > > > PART II > > > > In his case for evaluating all claims by Col. Olcott about > the Masters by a single standard, Mr. Caldwell cites a letter > in which Olcott reported being awakened from sleep in Ceylon in > 1881 by Morya, who made him take dictation for an hour. He > then goes on to describe a case where Morya "showed himself" to > Olcott and HPB, and an "appearance" by Morya before six other > people. All of these are equated with the Ooton Liatto case, > which is much more clearly one of *physically* present people > conversing with Olcott. But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to > recognize that these "appearances" sound more like paranormal > visitations than normal physical visits. How can he assume > that such appearances, if genuine, were not Ranbir Singh, since > he does not know whether or not the maharaja was capable of > such phenomena? What does he know of other people who were, > who might therefore be more plausible candidates for the Morya in > these stories? This section of his argument shows naivete in > conflating different categories of evidence. The principle > which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is that extraordinary claims > require extraordinary proof. My explanation of HPB's > relationship with the Masters relies on ordinary factors and is > based on ordinary historical evidence. Mr. Caldwell is > defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters, on > behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more dubious and > ambiguous kind. > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 12:55:25 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Rebuttal 2.5 Message-ID: <199701201755.MAA22891@leo.vsla.edu> > PART III > > > > Mr. Caldwell speculates that I attempt to cast doubt on > the testimony of S.R. Ramaswamier concerning his encounter with > Morya solely because this conflicts with my hypothesis about > Ranbir Singh. This is quite untrue, since Ramaswamier could > have met *someone* posing as Morya even if the primary > prototype for the Mahatma was miles away. The primary reason > for considering the testimony fraudulent is internal, in the > amazingly sophisticated and elaborate article allegedly written > by Ramaswamier to describe it. His own son concluded that the > story involved deception somehow. Mr. Caldwell makes a > very dubious reading of the Mahatma letters to Ramaswamier, for > example the one in which Morya writes "Every one must know he > is my chela, and that he has seen me in Sikkim..." which to him > means that Ramaswamier in fact believed in Morya's existence > *and* that he had met him in Sikkim. The gist of my argument > in *Initiates of Theosophical Masters* is that Ramaswamier > indeed believed in the reality of Morya, and was participating > in a fraud designed to simultaneously prove his existence and > mislead the public about his location. The letter in question > indicates that the journey had a specific propaganda purpose designed in > advance. Caldwell asks "Does it make any sense that > Ramaswamier would be receiving Mahatmic letters with such > advice [as to `remember I am with you'] when (according to > Johnson) Ramaswamier knew that he had himself lied about his > encounter with Morya in Sikkim?" Indeed it does make sense, in > light of the evidence that Ramaswamier, Damodar, Pillai, Babaji > and Mohini all believed in (or indeed knew of) the reality of > the Mahatmas, wanted to help prove it, and were willing to use > deception in order to mislead the public. I can only ask > readers to read the relevant portions of *Initiates* in order > to make their own evaluations. > Mr. Caldwell asks "why isn't Johnson willing to accuse > Olcott... of being a liar and HPB's confederate, too?" The > answer is that of course I am, as should be obvious. It > escapes me how Mr. Caldwell can in one section denounce me for > suspecting Olcott of forging a Mahatma letter to Sinnett, and > in a subsequent section blame me for not suspecting Olcott of > being a liar and confederate. But he seems to mean something > quite different by "liar" than I do. Liars are not necessarily > people who never tell the truth, as some skeptical writers > about HPB seem to assume. They may lie for strategic reasons, > and according to my study of the evidence both HPB and Olcott > had abundant reasons for lying about the Masters. The > challenge for the historical researcher who lives in a world of > myriad shades of grey rather than simplistic black and white is > to determine when people are lying and when they are telling > the truth, and why. Olcott did not lie all the time, and > wanted to convey to the world his genuine conviction of the > reality of the Masters. But he sometimes was obliged to lie in > order to protect their privacy, just as HPB was. My > conclusion about truthtelling and lying by Olcott is the same > as about HPB; both wanted to tell as much of the truth about > the Masters as they could without risking their exposure to the > public. > Finally, the main factor which makes the Ramaswamier > testimony and the rest of the Sikkim story less credible than > Olcott's and HPB's tales of meeting the Masters in the Punjab > and Kashmir is contextual. There is abundant historical > evidence of the Founders' contacts in northwest India, as well > as HPB's literary familiarity with Hinduism and Sikhism at the > time the Mahatma letters were written. What comparable > evidence is there from this period concerning contacts with > Tibetan Buddhism? HPB's writings do not demonstrate any > persuasive familiarity with Tibetan Buddhism until some years > later. Several scholars in the field have commented on the > entirely unconvincing nature of the claims in the Mahatma > letters regarding Tibet. In *Initiates* I cite the conclusions > of Alexandra David-Neel on this subject; as a leading scholar > of Tibetan Buddhism and a former Theosophist her testimony is > particularly relevant. > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:22:08 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701210030.TAA23736@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: RIhle@aol.com > > RI--> > Easy for you to say. When it comes to "truth," I wish I could be as cocksure > of anything as you may be of everything (JRC coached me to say this). > Anyway, perhaps we "sell out" truth to some extent every time we try to put > it into words, so what's the big sacrifice in being charming or silent? > > TR--> > If correctly using logic is "alpha-male," then being "alpha-male" is good. > As "alpha-male" means the superior monkey of the pack, then it would logically follow that to imitate a superior monkey would also be good. And that superior creature would be using "monkey logic". Soooo, to be an alpha-male one would have to use monkey logic. Is a monkey more logical than a human being? Since he is superior, then he must be as or more logical than the average man on the street. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:33:46 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Truth Message-ID: <32E41CFA.4EEC@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >What meaning does seeking truth have, if it doesn't matter? Would you >regard the statement "World War 2 ended last year" as being equivalent >in value to the statement "World War 2 ended in 1945?" You are confusing historical "truth" (which is nothing more than memory), with Truth. Truth (i.e., that which there is nothing higher than) is more than our memory of illusory (mayaic) events. Nothing physical has Truth. Jerry S. Member, TI - From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:52:06 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Truth Message-ID: <32E42146.4DF1@worldnet.att.net> Doss: >Once you start with a falsehood (interesting or not), then it will lead >to further falsehoods since there will be holes in the falsehood and so >there will be a chain of falsehoods....etc Doss, your arguement is right insofar as mundane logic is concerned, but I think Chuck is on another level. In a sense, every truth has the kernel within it of a falsehoos, and vice versa. This comes from the yin-yang, of course, which demonstrates that every side of a duality contains within it the seed of its opposite. >A truth is simple and does not change and no burden on the memory and >does not need much of a mental effort. This sounds good to most of us, and we are conforted by thinking that there is something in existence that is eternal and changeless. However, I suspect that unchanging truth doesn't really exist except for possibly a manvantara. But the truth of one manvantara may not be the truth in another. Perhaps we can say that the only real eternal truth is change itself? My own feeling is that the only real Truth to this or any other manvantaric existence is the divine Monad and its inherent ability to express itself, and this is impossible to describe in words and is quite beyond all logic to explain. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 20:19:58 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970121021958.006f9220@mail.eden.com> At 09:00 PM 1/20/97 -0500, you wrote: >Doss: >>Once you start with a falsehood (interesting or not), then it will lead >>to further falsehoods since there will be holes in the falsehood and so >>there will be a chain of falsehoods....etc > >Doss, your arguement is right insofar as mundane logic is concerned, >but I think Chuck is on another level. In a sense, every truth >has the kernel within it of a falsehoos, and vice versa. This >comes from the yin-yang, of course, which demonstrates that every >side of a duality contains within it the seed of its opposite. > >>A truth is simple and does not change and no burden on the memory and >>does not need much of a mental effort. > > This sounds good to most of us, and we are conforted >by thinking that there is something in existence that is eternal >and changeless. However, I suspect that unchanging truth >doesn't really exist except for possibly a manvantara. But >the truth of one manvantara may not be the truth in another. >Perhaps we can say that the only real eternal truth is >change itself? My own feeling is that the only real Truth >to this or any other manvantaric existence is the divine >Monad and its inherent ability to express itself, and this >is impossible to describe in words and is quite beyond all >logic to explain. > >Jerry S. >Member, TI > Jerry: I agree with you. I think I should have substituted "fact" for "truth" in my post. Again I am reminded of the famous Truth is a pathless land approach where Truth is seen as not a fixed one but something -- I would not say dynamic -- but *not* fixed. Thanks. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 03:03:56 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <32e82c4f.1007434@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 21 Jan 97, Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom: >>What meaning does seeking truth have, if it doesn't matter? Would you >>regard the statement "World War 2 ended last year" as being equivalent >>in value to the statement "World War 2 ended in 1945?" > >You are confusing historical "truth" (which is nothing more than >memory), with Truth. Truth (i.e., that which there is nothing >higher than) is more than our memory of illusory (mayaic) events. >Nothing physical has Truth. What do you mean by Truth, if not the objective opposite of falsehood? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:42:46 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Misguided Priorities of "Theosophists"? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970121034246.006ef3fc@mail.eden.com> More and more we see situations like what Alan has described (a resident indigent member was thrown out of the lodge premises on to the streets and being taken care of by Salvation Army Shelter), one wonders if along the way the "Leadbeater Theosophy Model" may have put honest, intelligent, highly educated and well meaning members on the wrong track/direction/priorities. Let me what I have witnessed: Almost 30 years ago, when I used to go to a Lodge in India, we had the lodge meetings at 9.00 AM every Sunday. Myself and several other "unwashed" and "unanointed" ordinary rookie members used to attend the meeting. Usually we discussed some topic of interest and the meetings lasted till 12:00 Noon. In the same lodge, the ES members used to meet at 8:00 AM and their meetings would be over by 9:00 AM. There were some members who were in ES and attended the ES meeting. The interesting thing was there were a couple of members who after the ES meeting, just took off and never ever bothered to attend the TS meeting that followed nor even made any attempt to meet with non-ES members who showed up. There were two cases I distinctly remember. One was a man in his sixties who had been a member for a long time and had even lived in Adyar for several years. The other was a younger man and his wife. The latter was then a mid level government official. But if there was a TS meeting which was addressed by the International President or some other dignitary from Adyar, these three individuals would be in the front row of seats. From the viewpoint of us the ordinary rookie members, it appeared that these individuals felt it is more important to participate in the ES meeting than stay and support and participate in the regular TS meetings. They seems to have forgotten that but for the TS, ES would not be there. The great irony was that the younger man referred to above, in his later years occupied one of the high International positions in TS at Adyar. While these folks are honest, trustworthy, dependable and honorable people, in my opinion, their priorities relative to TS seems to have gotten topsy turvy. It is quite likely that there may be other similar cases that others may be aware of. It may do a lot of good to all members of TS -- both rookies and veterans alike, to revisit and remember the prime objective of the Real Founders was to help the Humanity and not to start a school of psychology or occultism etc. It may be a cry in the wilderness, if so let it be so. My 2 cents worth. Your mileage and direction may vary. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:39:36 -0500 From: Ken Malkin Subject: Wheaton Minutes Message-ID: <32E44888.46A0@gil.net> Bart Wrote in Reply I go by my statement; you have the right to see the minutes from Wheaton, but they do not have the responsibility to do your research for you. In addition, I do not have the time to do the full research, either; I'm certain that Sy can fill you in on the dates involved. I stated in my original message, Sy has no memory of ANY minutes from Wheaton coming to the Miami Lodge in the five years he was President in any form. You do not need to do any research, just supply the year. That will give me a place to start. As you haved seen the actual documentation, please give me the year. Wheaton could only have two or three inutes to suplly at best. There has been NO confirmation of your geting a copy of the minutes by any postings to date. Please Bart, give me a hand and forward the information. Thanks once again for your efforts on my behalf. Ken Malkin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:11:48 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970121001148_302621287@emout11.mail.aol.com> Tom Robertson writes--> In the early days of my involvement in the TS, I considered what I would do if a Master materialized during one of our meetings. I may have "kissed-up" to him, then, but now, I believe that's the last thing any kind of superior being would respect. If anyone needs falsehood from me in order to gain my friendship, I wouldn't want theirs. Richard Ihle writes--> I can sympathize with this sentiment. One of the things which turned me off about Muktananda, for example, was seeing a long line of Westeners crawling up to kiss his foot. On the other hand, if he materialized right here in the room with me now and wanted some show of deference to the "lineage of gurus" he was part of, I can guarantee you that I would pucker-up pronto. Yes, I would be a good ~Muslim~ (which I think means "submitter" or "surrenderer"). Anyway, when you think about it, what difference would it make to a person who has done enough meditation to ~actually~ know that he or she is not the energy, body, emotions, or mental nature? At some higher, more rarefied level, the kisser and kissed are the same Thing anyway, aren't they? Thus, perhaps an outward show of subordination may merely symbolize the egoic condition of consciousness that the chela is aspiring to--and, of course, since the guru is already supposed to be more or less stabilized in Buddhi-manas consciousness, he or she egoically cannot have a "foot," anyway. But alas, Muktananda gave me the impression that he knew he had a foot; therefore, I didn't kiss it. RI--> Perhaps logic is just the slow vapor trail which forms after the flawless/flawed jet of intuition, perception, or apprehension has flown over. Perhaps logic is even worthless unless it initially has something valid to manipulate. TR--> You seem to be implying that logic limits something. I do not see how it does that, although I can see how believing that nothing transcends logic would be limiting. But believing that there are truths which transcend logic hardly justifies illogic. Illogic is the sure road to superstition. RI--> Although not necessarily implied in my previous post, now that I think about it, I suppose that a person who is too firmly "incorporated" with logic may be hampering themselves in terms of immediate apprehension, intuition, or "transcendental perception." Just as a mental nature which is "flexible" enough to juxtapose dissimilar planes can be helpful with creativity, so too, perhaps, might a "slightly losened" logical overlay facilitate the theosophical type of ~seeing~. Where we may really disagree, however, is in your statement, "Illogic is the sure road to superstition." My view is that ~faulty initial perception~, and not illogic, is the more-travelled freeway. For example, during WWII a phenomenon called "cargo cults" arose. Some very primitive people in remote places saw for the first time the big cargo planes unloading all kinds of material goods. The people thought that the planes were "birds of the gods," and they developed all sorts of ceremonies etc. to honor and worship the Great Ones who had sent them. Objectively speaking, many of their activities might have been regarded as perfectly logical--if, that is, one granted the validity of their initial perception. Another possible example is in the statement "women want to be dominated by men." (This has been stated in a number of ways, so I'm not even sure of your original wording any more.) Now, there is a good possibility that this was based on some personal perception or observation of yours. If it was, that is good because that is what theosophy is, after all (assuming that the perception is aided by your own "divine" resources, of course). All of the things you said after this first statement and which were based upon it seemed quite logical to me. The trouble, of course, was that I didn't ~see~ the matter in exactly the same way to begin with. For the record, I can perhaps relate to a little of what might have prompted you to make the statement. As a long-time high school teacher, I have been amazed by the type of boys that many of even my best TAG girls sometimes gravitate toward--regular Neanderthals and criminals in some cases. If I were forced to make a "theosophical" statement about this it would be along these lines: "Many younger women often seem fascinated by and may be drawn toward young men who seemingly have greater power than they have--power of either a physically or psychologically dominant nature." However, it is also part of my initial perception that perhaps the ~last~ thing these girls really want is to be dominated by such boys. It has been my experience, at least, that the girls seem almost invariably surprised and dismayed once they realize they are being dominated and treated unfairly; certainly, they do not seem interested in encouraging even further domination. Perhaps all the girls were after in the first place was a way to ~augment their own power by means of association~ or something; however, it seems very clear to me that they were not seeking the opportunity to surrender their power to someone else. Perhaps some young women can be fascinated by horses for a similar reason: they want to be near the horse, ride the horse, make the horse go where they want, etc.--but they do not want the horse to suddenly start ordering them around and making their lives miserable. Thus, perhaps both you and I may remain indefectible logicians, but much of our future logical thinking about women will be diametrically opposed because we didn't see the basic thing in the same way to begin with. Maybe you're right; maybe I'm right; maybe Kym will set us both straight. Who knows? Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:34:28 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970121053428.00702c74@mail.eden.com> At 12:15 AM 1/21/97 -0500, Richard wrote: >Tom Robertson writes--> >In the early days of my involvement in the TS, I considered what I would do >if a Master materialized during one of our meetings. I may have "kissed-up" >to him, then, but now, I believe that's the last thing any kind of superior >being would respect. If anyone needs falsehood from me in order to gain my >friendship, I wouldn't want theirs. > >Richard Ihle writes--> >I can sympathize with this sentiment. One of the things which turned me off >about Muktananda, for example, was seeing a long line of Westeners crawling >up to kiss his foot. On the other hand, if he materialized right here in the >room with me now and wanted some show of deference to the "lineage of gurus" >he was part of, I can guarantee you that I would pucker-up pronto. > >Yes, I would be a good ~Muslim~ (which I think means "submitter" or >"surrenderer"). Anyway, when you think about it, what difference would it >make to a person who has done enough meditation to ~actually~ know that he or >she is not the energy, body, emotions, or mental nature? At some higher, >more rarefied level, the kisser and kissed are the same Thing anyway, aren't >they? Thus, perhaps an outward show of subordination may merely symbolize >the egoic condition of consciousness that the chela is aspiring to--and, of >course, since the guru is already supposed to be more or less stabilized in >Buddhi-manas consciousness, he or she egoically cannot have a "foot," anyway. > > >But alas, Muktananda gave me the impression that he knew he had a foot; >therefore, I didn't kiss it. > The above post reminds me of a practice followed by Krishnaji. He never wanted *any* one to touch his feet -- even though in India it is considered a routine matter of respect to a person --. And if by accident someone touched his feed, he would in turn touch the feet of the person who touched his. An example of the kisser and kissed being the same fundamentally? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:18:14 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theosophy Message-ID: <32E45FA6.361F@eden.com> While browing in Cyberspace, I saw the following: ====================================================== THEOSOPHY, n. An ancient faith having all the certitude of religion and all the mystery of science. The modern Theosophist holds, with the Buddhists, that we live an incalculable number of times on this earth, in as many several bodies, because one life is not long enough for our complete spiritual development; that is, a single lifetime does not suffice for us to become as wise and good as we choose to wish to become. To be absolutely wise and good -- that is perfection; and the Theosophist is so keen-sighted as to have observed that everything desirous of improvement eventually attains perfection. Less competent observers are disposed to except cats, which seem neither wiser nor better than they were last year. The greatest and fattest of recent Theosophists was the late Madame Blavatsky, who had no cat. This definition is from The Devil's Dictionary by Ambrose Bierce, published in 1911. ============================================================== MKR: The last line I liked. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:40:55 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970121133150_1759126423@emout16.mail.aol.com> Ann, I know. I had to abandon logic because it made my ears pointy and the helmet wouldn't fit right over them. Seriously, logic is very useful for one thing. It determines if a statement is internally consistent. But as a tool for anything else it is totally useless. To be totally logical is ultimately to be insane because it means an end to being rational. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:53:21 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Is this Theosophy? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970121185321.006b83dc@xs4all.nl> >MKR wrote: >I would to know how many on this list have ever seen the Wood's book. It >would be an interesting statistics. > >MKR: > I am glad to have one. Ordered when in Hong Kong from Aquarian Book Service, London, almost forty years ago. It cost no less than 10 sh. 6 p., say $ 1,75 ! Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 13:57:06 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Theosophy Message-ID: <970121134157_1892508974@emout13.mail.aol.com> Cats, being already perfected beings, have no need of advancement. (Nootzy just told me that). Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:46:22 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: Wheaton Minutes Message-ID: <9701211946.AA15164@toto.csustan.edu> >Bart Wrote in Reply > I go by my statement; you have the right to see > the minutes from Wheaton, but they do not have the > responsibility to do your research for you. In > addition, I do not have the time to do the full research, > either; I'm certain that Sy can fill you in on the dates > involved. >I stated in my original message, Sy has no memory of ANY minutes >from Wheaton coming to the Miami Lodge in the five years he was >President in any form. >You do not need to do any research, just supply the year. That >will give me a place to start. As you haved seen the actual >documentation, please give me the year. Wheaton could only have >two or three inutes to suplly at best. There has been NO >confirmation of your geting a copy of the minutes by any >postings to date. Please Bart, give me a hand and >forward the information. >Thanks once again for your efforts on my behalf. >Ken Malkin JHE The Board meetings are held in January and July of each year in an office in the main headquarters building. A summarized (i.e. edited) form of the minutes are usually published in THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST. The summary contains that information which Headquarters wants you to know and what they don't care that you know. Wheaton considers how a Board member voted on an issue to be a major secret. Therefore it is unlikely that they will allow any non Board member to see the actual minutes, which might reveal this kind of information. If you succeed in getting copies of the minutes without using or threatening legal action, then my hat is off to you. If Bart has a copy of the minutes, I will appreciate it if he forwards me a copy too. I will happily pay his copying and postage expenses. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 19:25:47 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <32e9166a.2347000@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 21 Jan 97, Richard Ihle wrote: >Where we may really disagree, however, is in your statement, "Illogic is the >sure road to superstition." My view is that ~faulty initial perception~, and >not illogic, is the more-travelled freeway. All philosophies begin with premises that cannot be established logically. Logic, like a computer, can only work with what it is given. >However, it is also part of my initial perception that perhaps the ~last~ >thing these girls really want is to be dominated by such boys. > >It has been my experience, at least, that the girls seem almost invariably >surprised and dismayed once they realize they are being dominated and >treated unfairly As I hope I have made clear by now, I never meant to associate dominance with injustice. It is not possible to want to be treated unfairly. In the social context in which I had been using it recently, no one drew that association, but rather saw submission as equal in value to dominance, and were only using the desire to be dominated in its consensual form. If most people outside of that social context associate dominance with unfairness, my use of the word outside that context was inappropriate to express what I meant. >Thus, perhaps both you and I may remain indefectible logicians, but much >of our future logical thinking about women will be diametrically opposed >because we didn't see the basic thing in the same way to begin with. >Maybe you're right; maybe I'm right; maybe Kym will set us both straight. >Who knows? All good things cause dependence. If Kym succeeds in her goal to single-handedly destroy all sexism and the sense of superiority I so desperately cling to, I would be left with no emotional support. I cannot allow that. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 97 17:12:25 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Intuition and thinking Message-ID: <199701212212.RAA08322@leo.vsla.edu> In Jungian terms, intuition is a mode of perception, while thinking is a mode of judgment. It is not correct IMO to say that you can't have valid intuitions without valid thinking (i.e. logic). Since perception is prior to judgment (or should be, although in some Theosophical consciousnesses it's not) one can have genuine intuitions, even remarkably acute ones, while having poor or distorted thinking skills. For example, William Blake, Salvador Dali, our very own Theosophical Aleksandr Skriabin, all really nutty people from a logical point of view, whose intuitive perceptions have enriched humanity tremendously. What I don't understand and would like to throw out for discussion is how Theosophy has become so stale and dry as a movement, so dominated by judgment and lacking in perception. I cannot think of a really fresh outlook or stirring new perception that has emerged in Theosophical literature in decades. And yet the movement began with a person who was much more an intuitive than a thinking type. Somewhere along the line, maybe in the wake of Krishnamurti's defection, the intuitive side seems to have shriveled up and died. What happened? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:46:59 From: be94bmp@brunel.ac.uk (Benjamin Mark Pybus) Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 841 Message-ID: Jerry, First of all, thank you for your reference to the The New Emperor's mind, it is/was superb. In fact, since one of my recent querries was whether a computer had consciousness it had a two fold benefit! Q. If a computer has an etheric field, has it consciousness on the human level or only on a mineral kingdom level? That aside however: >Nothing physical has Truth Has truth or Is Truth? Does a mirror not have an image and if it does, is not its image part of the object it is reflecting? Is Truth necessarily connected with what is "real" or is what is both "real" or maya simply the Whole, which Is Truth? What also of "virtual images" - to use a physics term in optics? Are we a virtual image? If so, is that why we can become both self conscious and god-conscious? > This sounds good to most of us, and we are conforted >by thinking that there is something in existence that is eternal >and changeless. However, I suspect that unchanging truth >doesn't really exist except for possibly a manvantara. But >the truth of one manvantara may not be the truth in another. >Perhaps we can say that the only real eternal truth is >change itself? My own feeling is that the only real Truth >to this or any other manvantaric existence is the divine >Monad and its inherent ability to express itself, and this >is impossible to describe in words and is quite beyond all >logic to explain. Are not all of us part of that "something in existence that is eternal and changeless"? Indeed are we not ourselves changeless, in Truth? Should we be "comforted" by our own illusions? IMHO Bliss consciousness probably does not have these rather pleasant crutches. Bliss/Truth can only be established through pain. Pain doesn't, of itself,imply change but on the physical/emotion/mental levels it means disintegration of present and previous thoughts which necessarily requires change. In reference to the manvantaras, perhaps Truth is dynamic in nature, but how can one know.I wonder whether the seven Truths as described in the Bible as the "seven seals" would be true only for this manvantara, or whether such a book is "timeless". Ben From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:57:05 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Theosophy Message-ID: In message <970121134157_1892508974@emout13.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Cats, being already perfected beings, have no need of advancement. >(Nootzy just told me that). > >Chuck the Heretic True wisdom at last! Alan's cat. (Actually, Alan is my human, but this is deep stuff). --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Ancient Wisdom for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TINT@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 16:40:27 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Misguided Priorities of "Theosophists"? Message-ID: <199701220040.QAA28255@palrel1.hp.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: [snip] > In the same lodge, the ES members used to meet at 8:00 AM and their > meetings would be over by 9:00 AM. There were some members who were in ES > and attended the ES meeting. The interesting thing was there were a couple > of members who after the ES meeting, just took off and never ever bothered > to attend the TS meeting that followed nor even made any attempt to meet > with non-ES members who showed up. Sad. Not a very agapeic spirit. > There were two cases I distinctly remember. One was a man in his > sixties who had been a member for a long time and had even lived in Adyar > for several years. The other was a younger man and his wife. The latter was > then a mid level government official. But if there was a TS meeting which > was addressed by the International President or some other dignitary from > Adyar, these three individuals would be in the front row of seats. "Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts." There are three kinds of devotees: pidgeons, doves, and eagles. Pidgeons push their way to the "highest seats". "Me first". Doves are harmless, do not persecute other members, but also do not discern evil when it threatens. Eagles protect the innocent. With their high flight they see the machinations of evil and are prepared to do battle if necessary - but ONLY when it is necessary. [snip] > It may do a lot of good to all members of TS -- both rookies and veterans > alike, to revisit and remember the prime objective of the Real Founders was > to help the Humanity and not to start a school of psychology or occultism > etc. It may be a cry in the wilderness, if so let it be so. Yes indeed. All too often people want to jealously claim some pompous arcane-sounding bit of esoterica for ego's sake. One thing should probably be explicitly stated, even if it is probably implicit in your stance. TS and similar groups are not on the soup-kitchen level of service - though there is certainly nothing wrong with that kind of service. It is to make good "citizens" of the universe. Self-development, if it is for the sake of being a good "citizen" is not selfish. As Jung said, it takes individual grains to make the Sahara desert. One serves the whole desert, provided he knows how to be a good grain. One naturally helps others if he has found his center. He can better "pull out the beam" in others eyes. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:59:05 EST From: jmeier@microfone.net (Jim Meier) Subject: Full Moon in Aquarius Message-ID: <199701220159.2652200@microfone.net> The full moon occurs this Thursday in Aquarius. Aquarius is the eleventh sign, and the eleventh labor of Hercules was to clean the Augean stables. Hercules went to the lands of King Augeas, where the royal stables were filthy with the accumulated dung of 30 years. The fields were also over-fertilized so that no crops would grow, and a pestilence was over the kingdom. Hercules first presented himself to the king and promised to rid the kingdom of its blight, but he was not believed. How could one man do such a thing?! As he studied the problem, Hercules saw that two rivers flowed through the kingdom, close by the stables. He broke the restraining walls and diverted the cleansing waters through the stables, and thereby accomplished in a day what no other had been able to do. He returned to the king but was rebuked and ordered to leave the kingdom immediately on pain of death. His service to the kingdom complete, Hercules returned to his own home. ***** This is a most important sign, because the energies of Aquarius condition not only this month but also the coming 2,000 year period. The keynote of Aquarius is service and cooperation, and there is much evidence of a growing spirit of cooperation in humanity. The cycles overlap in transition and are not clearly distinct, however, and there are conflicting forces at the junctions; we can see this in nearly every field of experience as the incoming energies of selfless service, cooperation and Brotherhood clash with the authoritarian attitudes holding over from the Piscean age that is rapidly passing away. The polar opposite of Aquarius is Leo, and these two form a "whole" just as do each of the opposite pairs of the Zodiac. Hercules is self-centered in Leo, with energies directed inward; in Aquarius, his goal is selfless service, rendered without personal reward for the benefit of others. Aquarius is an air sign, but the word derives from the Latin aqua, water. "The waters of life and love" pour from the jar of the symbolic server in Aquarius, even as Hercules used the rivers to cleanse the stables of king Augeas. Theosophists know "the waters" refer to the emotional realm and there is a link between the astral plane and the buddhic; the waters "of Life and Love" are poured forth for thirsty men, and in this the Age of Aquarius we shall come to know a fuller meaning of those words. __________________ The full moon in Aquarius occurs this Thursday, January 23rd, at 10:12 am Eastern Standard Time, USA (3:12 pm GMT). A group meditation will be held on the subject of Letting in the Light on Wednesday evening at 7:00 pm (EST) as well as at the exact time of the full moon. At the time of each full moon Festival, energy qualified by the constellation influencing that period flows into the range of human awareness, thereby establishing the divine attributes in the consciousness of humanity. This spiritual inflow can be channelled in meditation into the minds and hearts of all people, and everyone is invited to participate in the group effort. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:18:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970122021805.006ba7dc@mail.eden.com> At 05:14 PM 1/21/97 -0500, "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: > >What I don't understand and would like to throw out for >discussion is how Theosophy has become so stale and dry as a >movement, so dominated by judgment and lacking in perception. >I cannot think of a really fresh outlook or stirring new >perception that has emerged in Theosophical literature in >decades. And yet the movement began with a person who was much >more an intuitive than a thinking type. Somewhere along the >line, maybe in the wake of Krishnamurti's defection, the >intuitive side seems to have shriveled up and died. What >happened? > IMHO, the Theosophy took a wrong turn when the "Leadbeater Theosophy" Model was put in place. When the TS was launched, in one of the most important letters it was clearly stated that the Chiefs want a Brotherhood of Humanity and but not a school of Psychology (I am quoting from memory). Self improvment and study of the matters relating to the unseen side of the world was ok, IMHO, but when it was *not* pursued with the primary objective/application in the area of improving the conditions of Humanity, the dynamism that existed in the early days disappeared. So long as the thrust/emphasis continues to be (as it appears to me) a recruiting and training ground for a future sixth root race in 700 years from now and totally neglecting what can be done today, it appears to me to be a selfish endeavor and in such a condition how can one expect the dynamism and growth that was there is the early days. In referring to the conditions existing almost 70 years ago in Adyar, Krishnamurti stated that "Adyar is a lovely place, but people there are dead" seem to summarize the conditions then existing. He had lived there and hence he was brutally honest about what he saw. I am not sure what has changed since then. Again I may be wrong on all of the above. But it is a good topic and others may be able to see the whole picture from a different point of view and we can all benefit from a honest discussion. MKR aka Doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:32:11 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Theosophy Classics on CD-ROM Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970122023211.006e6948@mail.eden.com> Hi A friend of mine is working on putting some of the Theosophy Classics on CD-ROM to make it available to all. Is there any one who has information on how to go about mass duplication of CD-ROM at lowest cost. If you have info or sources/suppliers, please e-mail me at ramadoss@eden.com MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 20:03:30 -0800 From: bartl@sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701220403.UAA11321@m2.sprynet.com> >JHE >Your explanation seems quite different from the one Stan Trelor >published in the CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST at the time. What is the >source of your information here? This is what the Lodges were told. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:32:42 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701220532.WAA02778@snowden.micron.net> Tom wrote: >All good things cause dependence. If Kym succeeds in her goal to >single-handedly destroy all sexism and the sense of superiority I so >desperately cling to, I would be left with no emotional support. "Single-handedly?" I hate (well, maybe not) to raise your anxiety level, but there are oodles of us out there engaged in battle royal to 'destroy all sexism.' >I cannot allow that. [Kym drops to the floor in sidesplitting laughter] Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:36:09 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: CD-ROM Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970122053609.00680608@mail.eden.com> Hi I was looking at the production cost of cd-rom for a friend of mine and was astounded how low it is. For example if 1,000 copies are made, the per copy cost of duplication is $1.60 each and for 2,500 copies it is only $1.37. This cost includes all production costs including the jewel case. If all the Theosophical Classics are converted to a cd-rom then we do not need to buy an of the classic works. Since copyright to most of the works have expired, conversion to cd-rom is going to happen and it is only a question of when. Just thought I should share where the industry is going. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 23:48:57 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: [R] Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970122054857.006c826c@mail.eden.com> At 09:39 PM 1/17/97 -0500, you wrote: ><<<<< ><<<<< ><<<<<<>At 09:28 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >>>M K Ramadoss wrote: >>>> >>>> Bart, a very good response. Usually what you see on record in the courts >>>> does not tell the full story, because they are written by lawyers >>>> representing the parties. >>>> >>>> Do you or any one else know if the full transcripts of the minutes of the >>>> meeting of the BOD of TSA at Wheaton are available to any TSA member to >>>> access freely? It would go a long way to get a full picture and a better >>>> understanding. >>> >>> There was a lot of material sent to the Lodges explaining the >>>situation. I cannot post it publicly, but, if it was placed in the >>>minutes of the Board of Directors of your Lodge (as it was with mine), >>>then you should have a right (depending on the laws of Texas; certainly >>>by New York law) to examine those minutes as a member of your Lodge. >>>Also, you have the right to examine the minutes of the Board meetings at >>>Wheaton, but they do not have a responsibility to do your research for >>>you (meaning that you would probably have to physically go there to >>>examine their minutes). >>> >>> Bart Lidofsky >> >>Here in San Antonio, the lodge has a small membership and we all have known >>each other for several years and I am not sure if any material was received >>here. Usually the business matters are paid very little attention here. Let >>me check with some of my friends who have held offices at that time. Thanks >>for the information. >> >>MKR >> > > Hi, here is an update. > > I was at the Lodge meeting this evening and showed the msg to one of >the officers who held the office of the President and other offices during >the time the Boston Litigation was in progress. He told me that he has not >seen any details except for a request that came for moral support for the >position taken by the group which was the Plaintiff. > > It appears that most lodges have not received the information that >NY Lodge received. > > > MKR After I posted the above message, I have not seen a single member response for having seen any detailed info received by any Lodge. The only conclusion that can be reached is Wheaton chose not to send any information to any lodge other than NY Lodge. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:48:45 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701220548.WAA04139@snowden.micron.net> Richard writes: >For the record, I can perhaps relate to a little of what might have prompted >you to make the statement. As a long-time high school teacher, I have been >amazed by the type of boys that many of even my best TAG girls sometimes >gravitate toward--regular Neanderthals and criminals in some cases. If I >were forced to make a "theosophical" statement about this it would be along >these lines: "Many younger women often seem fascinated by and may be drawn >toward young men who seemingly have greater power than they have--power of >either a physically or psychologically dominant nature." I am amazed that you are "amazed" at the behavior of young girls. They are simply responding to cultural demands and conditioning. "Regular Neanderthals and criminals" in this culture are worshipped, emulated. That whole "conquerer/hero/rebel" business, so popular in this society. Teenage girls are still taught that true happiness is found in a man. These teenage girls are watching movies written by men, reading textbooks written by men, reading magazines (claimed to be written for them) owned by men, listening to popular music dominated by men. . .and one wonders why they think men are the way to go? And, worse, many of the women who are considered to "have made it" betray girls by sending the message that sexuality is the ticket to freedom. The world still evolves around men. Around age 12, girls begin a downhill slide in self-esteem and body image. The reasons why are obvious. Girls begin to become acutely aware of how little genuine influence they really have. In the book "Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls" there is a passage that refers to issues previously discussed on theos: --Inclusive language helps girls feel included. One client said, "My aunt is a mail carrier. It's been hard to know what to call her -- 'mail person' didn't sound right and 'mail woman' sounded like something from the circus. I'm glad we have a word now for lady mailmen." Another noticed that artists are generally referred to as "he." She said, "That makes us say 'women artists,' which doesn't sound like they are real artists."-- >It has been my experience, at least, that the girls seem almost invariably >surprised and dismayed once they realize they are being dominated and treated >unfairly; certainly, they do not seem interested in encouraging even further >domination. To learn that the lessons, so ingrained in their psyche, are flawed is certainly dismaying. Girls, up to that point, may have really believed that society had their best interest at heart. Surprise, indeed. >Perhaps all the girls were after in the first place was a way to >~augment their own power by means of association~ or something; however, it >seems very clear to me that they were not seeking the opportunity to >surrender their power to someone else. No, girls do not seek to surrender their power to someone else - they are earnestly seeking ways in which to obtain equality. >Perhaps some young women can be fascinated by horses for a similar reason: they want >to be near the horse, ride the horse, make the horse go where they want, etc.--but >they do not want the horse to suddenly start ordering them around and making their >lives miserable. The horse analogy, in this instance, does not make the grade. Girls are not attracted to horses for the same reason they are attracted to particular males. Personally, I can see why a girl would be attracted to a horse - a strong, independent creature, but not really free to be - it is easy to identify. And I do find your comment "make the horse go where they want" an interesting one. Perhaps you would expand on this? >Maybe you're right; maybe I'm right; maybe Kym will set us both straight. Who knows? Who knows. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 06:47:41 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking Message-ID: <33066374.22068974@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Tue, 21 Jan 97, K. Paul Johnson wrote: >In Jungian terms, intuition is a mode of perception, while >thinking is a mode of judgment. It is not correct IMO to say >that you can't have valid intuitions without valid thinking >(i.e. logic). Since perception is prior to judgment (or should >be, although in some Theosophical consciousnesses it's not) one >can have genuine intuitions, even remarkably acute ones, while >having poor or distorted thinking skills. For example, William >Blake, Salvador Dali, our very own Theosophical Aleksandr >Skriabin, all really nutty people from a logical point of view, >whose intuitive perceptions have enriched humanity tremendously. I agree that intuition precedes thought, and I over spoke in saying that "incorrect logic makes correct intuition impossible." The premises of any philosophy can only be established intuitively. One's ability, or lack thereof, to think logically may have little or nothing to do with the truth of one's premises. But, unless it's possible to not think at all on one's premises, illogic may eventually crowd out whatever truth there is in them. On the other hand, maybe renewed correct intuition can overcome illogic. It may depend heavily on the situation. I think of intuition partly as being a tool to detect imbalances. Determining whether one should be more solitary or more social, or whether, in relationships, one should be more serious or more silly, are jobs for the intuition. Doing math problems is a job for the mind. An intuitive, illogical individual can probably be quite balanced, but will have difficulty solving a differential equation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 9:48:05 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Mika's questions on Cayce Message-ID: <199701221448.JAA06422@leo.vsla.edu> Mika posted his questions privately but said it was fine to answer to the list. So here goes. Pardon the brevity, but one could go on for days on these so I have to give brief sketches: 1. What has Cayce told about Adepts? Especially those "theosophical" ones? Is he referring to them as some "spirits" or living human beings? A-- Cayce defines Masters as those of any cult or sect who have through self-discipline and spiritual awareness reached the point where their higher potentials begin to manifest. But he doesn't define this as necessarily all positive, saying that if these manifesting abilities are used to control others, "then they abuse." He talked about the Great White Brotherhood in general terms as the more spiritually advanced humans, called the Essenes a branch of the GWB, but never subscribed to the "Inner Government" model. He said that Saint-Germain was one of his sources, when needed, but generally downplayed the importance of Masters and encouraged people to look to their own Christ Consciousness rather than any outer authority. He usually refers to them as living humans, but also talked of discarnate sources. Mostly his source was his own Higher Self, according to the readings. 2. How do you think Cayce's readings worked? Or what was the source of all the information? That the big question and I still have plenty of room for new ideas about it. But generally, I have concluded that at least some of the time, quite often in fact, his clairvoyance was accurate in attuning to the physical bodies as well as the emotional and cognitive unconsciouses of the people who sought readings. (Have just read a fascinating new book called The Emotional Brain which makes the very useful distinction, based on hard research, between the emotional unconscious and the cognitive unconscious.) When he successfully attuned to their physical bodies, he was able to make accurate diagnoses and prescribe courses of treatment. His general diet and health guidelines are confirmed in many ways by subsequent findings. But his "vocabulary" of therapies was of course limited to his time and culture. I think going to the Cayce Hospital in 1930 would have been wiser than going to an allopathic one at the time, but allopathic medicine has made great strides since then which the readings do not anticipate. When he successfully attuned to people's emotional unconscious, he accurately related their life issues and addressed their spiritual needs in language that was meaningful to them. His acuteness in dream interpretation, astrological interpretation, meditation guidelines, and such is a sign of how well he attuned to people and groups at this level. But when he attuned to people's cognitive unconscious, he got his ideas out of their mental framework and parroted whatever assumptions they had. Thus the succession of people who got readings contributed to a growing body of doctrines that was in a sense jerry-built and accidental, containing bits and pieces of Theosophy, New Thought, Fourth Way, etc. etc., all wrapped up in a liberal Protestant interpretation of the Bible. That's the quick and dirty answer about where I'm coming from. Questions? Cheers, Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 07:18:07 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Theosophy Classics on CD-ROM Message-ID: <199701221605.LAA04983@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > A friend of mine is working on putting some of the Theosophy Classics on > CD-ROM to make it available to all. > > Is there any one who has information on how to go about mass duplication of > CD-ROM at lowest cost. If you have info or sources/suppliers, please e-mail > me at ramadoss@eden.com > When I first subscribed to theos-l in 1993 I asked whether HPB's works were going to put on a CD-ROM. John Algeo replied that it was a project that being worked on in the Phillipines. I wonder how far they've gotten. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:20:20 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking Message-ID: <199701221605.LAA05065@newman.cris.com> ---------- > From: K. Paul Johnson > > What I don't understand and would like to throw out for > discussion is how Theosophy has become so stale and dry as a > movement, so dominated by judgment and lacking in perception. > I cannot think of a really fresh outlook or stirring new > perception that has emerged in Theosophical literature in > decades. And yet the movement began with a person who was much > more an intuitive than a thinking type. Somewhere along the > line, maybe in the wake of Krishnamurti's defection, the > intuitive side seems to have shriveled up and died. What > happened? Perhaps it was a delliberate move NOT to stir the waters, because that would have put the movement in the possible danger of looking too avant-garde. And it was deemed better to look conservative by raking over the coals of the past rather than stirring up any new flames. Being conservative and historical looked dignified, rather the possibility of looking foolish if the innovative failed. Maybe when K left TS, there was so much pain and discreditation of what so many had put their hopes on, no one wanted to take the chance of exploring anything new. Not having that much knowledge about TS history I wonder what the public's reaction was to K's resignation and how TS was viewed from their angle. Maybe it cut a wound so deep that no one want to go in that direction, for fear it will happen again. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:33:52 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701221605.LAA05092@newman.cris.com> > Richard writes: > > >For the record, I can perhaps relate to a little of what might have prompted > >you to make the statement. As a long-time high school teacher, I have been > >amazed by the type of boys that many of even my best TAG girls sometimes > >gravitate toward--regular Neanderthals and criminals in some cases. If I > >were forced to make a "theosophical" statement about this it would be along > >these lines: "Many younger women often seem fascinated by and may be drawn > >toward young men who seemingly have greater power than they have--power of > >either a physically or psychologically dominant nature." > Why does this post remind me of the Broadway show/movie "Grease"? Or how about Marlon Brando in one of his earlier movies, running around on a motorcyle and eyeing a sweet young high school girl in a small town? I'm old enough to remember guys with greeeeasy ducktail haircuts (yes, the back of their head looked like the rear end of a duck) who always carried a comb in their pockets. And this was 7th grade! When we're at that age we're all dazzled by the images given to us. Then we grow up and get smarter and aren't so likely to date Danny Zuko, but go for the computer nerd, because the nerd (Bill Gates) is going to make a pile more cash and be a lot more stable than old greeeesy Danny. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 13:48:16 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Anatomy of the Spirit Message-ID: <199701221848.NAA07007@leo.vsla.edu> A new book by Caroline Myss, Anatomy of the Spirit, is of Theosophical interest. The author is a "medical intuitive" who sees the human energy field and chakras. The second part of the book contains a chapter on each of the seven (which is the Theosophical way of counting them; earlier sources vary) and the life and health issues related to them. Myss is an engaging writer who uses many personal stories to illustrate her thesis. She integrates the Kabbalah, the seven chakras, and the seven Christian sacraments into her system. Particularly interesting to me is the way medical problems are related to spiritual and psychological problems through her model. Similar in its approach to Barbara Brennan's books, Anatomy of the Spirit seems to be another step toward making certain concepts mainstream that were once limited, in the U.S., to Theosophical and related movements. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 06:28:10 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970123124026.1edf4776@iprolink.co.nz> Tom, I'd like to make some comments prompted by things you have written to Richard, with an eye on the recent past as well. >Illogic is the sure road to superstition. Then later >All philosophies begin with premises that cannot be established logically. >Logic, like a computer, can only work with what it is given. For all that I believe that logic is but one of the tools we have or can acquire, I wish that people (yes, a generalisation) in the TS and outside of it would apply logic at least half as unflinchingly as you, recent provocative remarks of mine put in their place. It would make for a *much* tidier interior house. I agree, too that logic can only work with what it is given, these givens being not just the underlying assumptions in the system, but also very much the meanings of the words and phrases used, and radiating out in circles of context and connectedness - the associations which outside of strictly logical discourse, color so much people's conceptions when they put words together, then again when others try to reassemble meaning from them. Sometimes, too, as we strive to put "inner" things into words, and we try to find an orderly way to express them, we may later realise that our perceptions of the very foundations of the terms we used, have shifted or expanded. Another "building attempt" to be put aside. But I do not think it's useless to try and try again to find structures of words that express a bit more and imprison a bit less. We wouldn't all be on this list, probably, if that were so. Certainly, I'd like to put behind me some of the little word-bundles I've put together! And, to respond to another thing you said: >As I hope I have made clear by now, I never meant to associate dominance >with injustice. It is not possible to want to be treated unfairly. In >the social context in which I had been using it recently, no one drew that >association, but rather saw submission as equal in value to dominance, and >were only using the desire to be dominated in its consensual form. If >most people outside of that social context associate dominance with >unfairness, my use of the word outside that context was inappropriate to >express what I meant. Thank you for that. I'll try not to hassle you on the "D" word again! >All good things cause dependence. If Kym succeeds in her goal to >single-handedly destroy all sexism and the sense of superiority I so >desperately cling to, I would be left with no emotional support. I cannot >allow that. You mean you need some emotional support? With good wishes Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 14:57:48 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking Message-ID: <970122144747_408869976@emout03.mail.aol.com> Paul, My personal feeling is that what dried up the theosophical well was spending too much time trying to be "respectable." In doing so, the TS virtually cast aside all the things that make for intuitive, creative stuff and got stuck with trying to kiss the rear of whatever scientist and his paradigm (all worth about 20 cents) happened to be popular at the moment. The result has been stupidity compounded by foolishness added to organizational ossification. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 97 15:33:53 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Ann, Chuck, and the Dry Well Message-ID: <199701222033.PAA19228@leo.vsla.edu> Ann writes that the Krishnamurti episode so traumatized the TS with being a laughingstock that there was an unspoken agreement to avoid all risks of such a thing recurring. I think that's right on the money with the Adyar Society. Katherine Tingley was in her own way a real intuitive, unpredictable, creative type, and in her wake the same kind of conservatism seems to have emerged in the Point Loma and derivative branches. There the conservatism may have had something to do with her overextending the society financially and the trauma of losing Point Loma parcel by parcel afterwards. Chuck says that a compulsion for respectability has caused the Adyar TS to adopt whatever coloration is fashionable rather than being creative or distinctive. That, too seems right on. After being an international joke in the wake of Krishnamurti's departure, the attitude seems to be to show just how mainstream we are. TPH has published a lot of fine books by creative authors-- but they haven't been Theosophists and haven't written about Theosophy. An occult theory about this goes to the 100-year cycle business. This indicates that from 1925 everything was downhill until 1975, when it completely died. But I don't have any trouble seeing signs of a new impulse coming in around that time. For a close-to-home example, it's the year that the ARE built its library and conference center and Virginia Beach started to be a New Age mecca. But there are lots of other cultural trends one could cite that indicate the mainstreaming of Theosophical ideas in other forms from about that time. So maybe the work of the TS is done, successful in spite of itself, but the impulse being spent our energies should go into new forms. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:40:28 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: How Theosophy has become stale Message-ID: <199701222140.NAA21207@palrel1.hp.com> > From: K. Paul Johnson > > What I don't understand and would like to throw out for > discussion is how Theosophy has become so stale and dry as a > movement, so dominated by judgment and lacking in perception. > I cannot think of a really fresh outlook or stirring new > perception that has emerged in Theosophical literature in > decades. And yet the movement began with a person who was much > more an intuitive than a thinking type. Somewhere along the > line, maybe in the wake of Krishnamurti's defection, the > intuitive side seems to have shriveled up and died. What > happened? I will take a liberty and assume you also mean non-experiential. I can only speak from the perspective of people I know who are sympathetic to theosophy, but not wanting to become affiliated with theosophical groups. Their main complaint is that theosophy is too cerebral. It fails to feed the devotional side - no rituals, no spiritual practices. While giving some truths, no attempt is made to translate truths into meaning - emotional meaning as well as intellectual meaning. Without this translation it is difficult to know what to do practically with theosophical knowledge. It is too concentrated. When truths are not put into action of some sort, inner or outer (and I do not mean mental gymnastics), they become dead. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:45:49 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970122183627_1959819018@emout04.mail.aol.com> Kym writes--> << I am amazed that you are "amazed" at the behavior of young girls. They are simply responding to cultural demands and conditioning. "Regular Neanderthals and criminals" in this culture are worshipped, emulated. That whole "conquerer/hero/rebel" business, so popular in this society. Teenage girls are still taught that true happiness is found in a man. These teenage girls are watching movies written by men, reading textbooks written by men, reading magazines (claimed to be written for them) owned by men, listening to popular music dominated by men. . .and one wonders why they think men are the way to go? >> Richard Ihle writes--> Some very good points. Just for clarification, however, what did you mean by your last sentence? Initially, I thought you meant, "one wonders why they [young women] think men are the way to go [to find true happiness]. Then, I started to reflect that perhaps you meant "one wonders why they think men [rather than other women] are the way to go." If you intended the former, I am wondering whether you believe that there is ~any~ possible true happiness that a heterosexual woman might find in a relationship with a man. (Here, of course, I do not mean the ~only~ or ~most important~ happiness.) If you intended the latter (which doesn't seem so likely), do you believe that this would be a viable alternative for heterosexual women as well? Just curious. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:08:55 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701230108.RAA02337@proxy1.ba.best.com> >Kym: And, worse, many of the women who are considered to "have made it" betray girls by sending the message that sexuality is the ticket to freedom. The world still evolves around men. Around age 12, girls begin a downhill slide in self-esteem and body image. The reasons why are obvious. Girls begin to become acutely aware of how little genuine influence they really have. Thoa: There is another side to women and sexuality. There are cultures in which girls are taught to be ashamed of their body, that they should downplay their sexuality as much as possible. In the Middle East, women are forced to cover their bodies. My ex-roommate, a traditional Vietnamese woman, would note whether the young women were dancing with too many different men. As I was growing up, I constantly received this "Nice girls shouldn't ..." Also, in some cultures, after a woman is married, she has to look as plain as possible so as not to do the improper thing of attracting another man's attention. I think women who have made it, such as Madonna, are saying, "I love my body. I am not ashamed of it. I am sexy, I am lusty, and I am powerful. Deal with it." TTT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:51:49 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: intuition & thinking Message-ID: <199701230305.WAA01850@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > the Chiefs want a >Brotherhood of Humanity and but not a school of Psychology (I am quoting >from memory). > > Self improvment and study of the matters relating to the unseen side >of the world was ok, IMHO, but when it was *not* pursued with the primary >objective/application in the area of improving the conditions of Humanity, >the dynamism that existed in the early days disappeared. So long as the >thrust/emphasis continues to be (as it appears to me) a recruiting and >training ground for a future sixth root race in 700 years from now and >totally neglecting what can be done today, it appears to me to be a selfish >endeavor and in such a condition how can one expect the dynamism and growth >that was there is the early days. If we're trying to improve the condition of humanity, what is wrong with the study of Psychology or ESP? Psych studies important aspects of human beings, among them how we think and how we feel. I think a study of psych engages both intelligence and intuition, so does studying ESP. I also think it's as selfish as many other things we do. By studying ourselves, we also find out how others tick. A psychologist needs to be vey aware, astute, inventive, and well read. I think that makes for a dynamic person, and not for a stodgy bore. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:58:33 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701230312.WAA03955@ultra1.dreamscape.com> I was President of the Paterson Lodge when the thing with Boston happened. We weren't told a thing from Wheaton. I heard some rumors, from people in Boston, but all I knew was that the Boston Lodge was in trouble ... no more. NOTE TO BART Dear Bart, Please take my name off your mailing list again. I'm 5 hours away from NYC and in no shape to travel. There's not much of a chance that I'll turn up at one of your meetings, even if Dora comes. Thanks Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:05:44 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: Boston Lodge Message-ID: <199701230319.WAA06070@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >Wheaton chose not to send any information >to any lodge other than NY Lodge. That could be true. Ed Abdil was on the National Board at the time, maybe he brought it back for them from Wheaton. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:32:55 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Limitations of Logic Message-ID: <32E67977.5BFA@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >But by no means was I saying that his thinking is generally illogical. >I take your word for it that he knows as much about magic as you say >he does, but I doubt he could know that much about magic, or, more >generally, whether anyone can know very much about anything, without >being logical. Thanks for the first statement, Tom. Actually, though, you have it all wrong. There is almost no logic to magic (or magick) at all. Those who apply logic to it find that it won't work. Only by being illogical do we get results. Why? Possibly because logic and reason are human, and pertain to the human brain-mind. In order for magic to work, we must transcend or go beyond the human mind, and thus transcend logic. I can see from your discourse that you are terribly wrapped up in logic, seeing it as some kind of litmus test for Truth. Alas, I see this as self-limiting, because you will never get beyond the human condition that way. Truth is both logical and illogical. It must be so, since it is all-in-all. Unfortuneately, this statement itself is not terribly logical, is it? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:39:44 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Goodness of Being Alpha-Male Message-ID: <32E67B10.22A2@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >If correctly using logic is "alpha-male," then being "alpha-male" >is good. Yes, while we are human and in the lower planes. Logic is always desireable here because the human mind yearns for it, and cherishes it. This is exactly why the feminine scares the bejesus out of alpha-males. But alpha-males cannot cross the Abyss, and can never taste the spiritual realms that are beyond human logic and reason. So, if you want to experience samadhi, you need to rise above the alpha-male condition. On the other hand, if you have no desire to do so, and are content with the human condition, then being alpha-male probably is, like you say, a good thing. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:46:24 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <32E67CA0.11A7@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >Logic is not a matter of opinion. It is not subject to whim. It is >simple to show who is being logical and who isn't. This sounds like pure fundamentalism. If true, then mental illness would not exist. It is obvious from modern psychology that everyone has their own sense of what is logical and what is not. I wish I had your cock-sureness where such things exist, but I am afraid that what seems logical to me, may be very illogical to you. BTW, intuition is seldom logical, yet most theosophists seem to want to develop it anyway. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:49:59 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Selling Out Truth Message-ID: <32E67D77.2D0E@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >Blatantly selling out the truth by being illogical costs one the right >to claim to be a seeker of truth. I could also say: Blatantly selling out the truth by being logical costs one the right to claim to be a seeker of truth. Its six of one, and half dozen of the other, Tom. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:57:37 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Logic vs Intuition Message-ID: <32E67F41.4D24@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >Correct intuition will trump correct logic any time. But incorrect >logic makes correct intuition impossible. This sounds good, but I don't know what it means. What is "correct" logic or "correct" intuition? Do you mean logic that works out to be "right?" I often get intuitive feelings that are terribly illogical. A nagging inner voice will tell me that something is wrong, while my logical brain-mind assures me that the inner voice is all wet. Can you guess which is almost never wrong? So what you think, do I always listen to my inner "correct" but illogical voice? No. Only once and awhile, because, like you, I am a creature of logic and illogical intuitive feelings usually take second place--even though they are always "correct." My Path lately has been one of listening to this inner voice rather than ignoring it. But this is not easy to do. The mind prefers logic. Maybe your experiences differ? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:25:20 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <32E693D0.5D15@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >What do you mean by Truth, if not the objective opposite of falsehood? I mean "that which is." This would, by my definition, include falsehood. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:47:24 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701230547.WAA01441@snowden.micron.net> Richard writes: >Some very good points. Just for clarification, however, what did you mean by >your last sentence? Initially, I thought you meant, "one wonders why they >[young women] think men are the way to go [to find true happiness]. That is what I meant. How about "one wonders why they think men are the 'exclusive' way to go?" Not sure if that makes it any clearer, though. >Then, I >started to reflect that perhaps you meant "one wonders why they think men >[rather than other women] are the way to go." No, but that's an interesting interpretation! >If you intended the former, I am wondering whether you believe that there is >~any~ possible true happiness that a heterosexual woman might find in a >relationship with a man. (Here, of course, I do not mean the ~only~ or ~most >important~ happiness.) Love between two people - male and female, male and male, female and female - can bring a profound, fulfilling, and enduring happiness. So sing the poets - and I concur. >If you intended the latter (which doesn't seem so likely), do you believe >that this would be a viable alternative for heterosexual women as well? Probably not - if you are speaking in the mating sense. I am one of those who believe that gender preferences are biological(although it would make no difference to me if it was a matter of choice). We love who we love. Personally, I suspect, for a heterosexual woman, being intimate with another woman would probably not be a viable alternative. >Just curious. Just curious? Hmmmm. I got the impression from your post that, really, you are dying to know whether or not I am a lesbian. Come on, admit it, Richard. Well, shocking as it sounds, not all feminists are lesbians, or man-haters. No, in this incarnation, I am in the heterosexual mode. Let us just say. . .my male-bashing is a form a merriment, and I prefer my men on the side. Now, are you ever going to answer my "horse" question? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:14:58 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701230614.XAA03202@snowden.micron.net> Thoa (TTT) wrote: >There is another side to women and sexuality. There are cultures in which >girls are taught to be ashamed of their body, that they should downplay >their sexuality as much as possible. In the Middle East, women are forced >to cover their bodies. My ex-roommate, a traditional Vietnamese woman, >would note whether the young women were dancing with too many different men. >As I was growing up, I constantly received this "Nice girls shouldn't ..." >Also, in some cultures, after a woman is married, she has to look as plain >as possible so as not to do the improper thing of attracting another man's >attention. I think women who have made it, such as Madonna, are saying, "I >love my body. I am not ashamed of it. I am sexy, I am lusty, and I am >powerful. Deal with it." I agree with your additional observation. Women have been taught to regard their bodies with contempt. What is happening to women in the Middle East is beyond horrific. America, too, in its own way, mocks the female body. Women need to learn to feel good about their bodies, restore respect and pride. However, there will come a day when Madonna's body fails to attract what she desires or sends the message she desires. Madonna's image, perceived by young girls, does not hold in high esteem the value of cerebral cultivation. Madonna may find her power fleeting, and she may have to "deal with it." The health of the body and the health of the mind are vitally important; however, the body is secondary, it should serve the mind. I fear that too many young women are internalizing the opposite reasoning. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:54:10 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <334b3421.141024166@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> On Wed, 22 Jan 97, Murray Stentiford wrote: >Certainly, I'd like to put behind me some of the little word-bundles I've put >together! I cringe at much of what I've said, more in person than in writing, though. It seems to be a common feeling among those who care about being truthful. >>All good things cause dependence. If Kym succeeds in her goal to >>single-handedly destroy all sexism and the sense of superiority I so >>desperately cling to, I would be left with no emotional support. I cannot >>allow that. >You mean you need some emotional support? I'll take whatever I can get. Logic isn't much help sometimes. I wish some women would quit picking on men so much. It's just not fair! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 21:42:18 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Ann, Chuck, and the Dry Well Message-ID: <199701231255.HAA04627@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Ann, Chuck, and the Dry Well > Date: Wednesday, January 22, 1997 2:40 PM > > An occult theory about this goes to the 100-year cycle > business. This indicates that from 1925 everything was > downhill until 1975, when it completely died. > So maybe the work of the TS is done, successful in spite of > itself, but the impulse being spent our energies should go into > new forms. In terms of TSA, they are going to experience transiting Pluto opposed their natal Pluto in June and October of this year. This is clearly a death/rebirth transit which most likely will support what you have said. As the first 100+ years has passed, the old form of the TSA will drop away and a new one could be born, although I imagine it wouldn't be painless. If the organization has ossified then there will be a shattering. The new form would preferably be Aquarian in nature: scientific, detached, progressive, futuristic, involved with all forms of electronic media and concerned with the welfare of humanity. The form of government would be group-oriented with the leadership being focalizers rather than absolute bosses. I think I've said this all before in some way, but I can't say it too many times. Maybe the thought forms will eventually come to pass on the physical plane. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:34:25 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701231440.JAA08871@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Thoa Tran > > Thoa: > There is another side to women and sexuality. There are cultures in which > girls are taught to be ashamed of their body, that they should downplay > their sexuality as much as possible. In the Middle East, women are forced > to cover their bodies. My ex-roommate, a traditional Vietnamese woman, > would note whether the young women were dancing with too many different men. > As I was growing up, I constantly received this "Nice girls shouldn't ..." > Also, in some cultures, after a woman is married, she has to look as plain > as possible so as not to do the improper thing of attracting another man's > attention. I think women who have made it, such as Madonna, are saying, "I > love my body. I am not ashamed of it. I am sexy, I am lusty, and I am > powerful. Deal with it." > I've always thought there was more than one side to the Feminine Divine. The one that was presented to me in the Catholic churches I was involved with, including the LCC, was one of Mary, meek and mild. Eyes downcast and wearing a pale blue robe, extremely passive. I believe the church fathers pushed this image for centuries because that was what they wanted women to immolate. Probably a suppression of the pagan/goddess religions that had come before, to be replaced with the patriarchal Judeo-Christian religion. I've never bought the Mary image, not since I was born, although it was always shoved in my face. The sacred feminine image that I hold dearest to my heart is Isis - courageous and strong. For those interested, here is the URL for a page that I found about the Sacred Feminine: http://www.compumedia.com/~mo/ -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:51:16 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 844 Message-ID: <970123134305_1110769302@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-23 01:16:50 EST, you write: << Chuck says that a compulsion for respectability has caused the Adyar TS to adopt whatever coloration is fashionable rather than being creative or distinctive. That, too seems right on. After being an international joke in the wake of Krishnamurti's departure, the attitude seems to be to show just how mainstream we are. TPH has published a lot of fine books by creative authors-- but they haven't been Theosophists and haven't written about Theosophy. >> I agree with these statements, especially regarding the mainstreaming of the Adyar TS. It's this penchant for consensus and the desire for approval by others outside the Society that causes the TS to dilute its teachings. I think it was Malcom Muggeridge who said that, "when once you begin to believe in nothing, then you can agree on anything". LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 06:39:59 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970124125215.1edfae26@iprolink.co.nz> Kym, [Richard wrote] >Some very good points. Just for clarification, however, what did you mean >by your last sentence? Initially, I thought you meant, "one wonders why >they [young women] think men are the way to go [to find true happiness]. [Then Kym] That is what I meant. How about "one wonders why they think men are the 'exclusive' way to go?" Not sure if that makes it any clearer, though. Young guys think women are the way to go, too (hey, logicians, that's a generalisation) and I often wonder why. No, that's not a slight. The promise of FULFILMENT, excitement, happiness, becoming a real "MAN", soul intimacy, the oh-so-remote feminine; yeah, and having notches on the belt, and feeling powerful, and living out your family's pathologies etc etc -- lead the young guy on. Society's images and expectations lay down the tracks you're supposed to find fulfilment on, for men as well as for women. With all the differences in these "pre-ordained" tracks, not to mention biology, there's nevertheless a whole lot in common in the impulsion in young women and men to respond to the immense magnetism that works between them. And if mystical experience (wish-washy term - I mean something real, strong, overwhelming, surprising beyond belief) can lift us out of ourselves, back to the connectedness, joy and innate power that I reckon we all remember deep down somewhere under all the socially-deposited layers, then, my God, no wonder people seek for it, not knowing quite what they're looking for, in sex and love which are, for many, the only places they are likely to get the faintest hint of what's in store for them beyond their wildest longings and imagination. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 15:05:49 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Throat Chakra Issues Message-ID: <199701232005.PAA21334@leo.vsla.edu> I arrived at work today planning to post on this, and found that Titus has anticipated the issue in his own post on the lack of experiential focus in the Theosophical movement. Just finished The Anatomy of Spirit, and am quite taken with Myss's thesis that there are different developmental issues corollary to each chakra. Her comments about the 5th (counting upwards) or throat chakra seem to me to encapsulate the problem of the Theosophical movement: "If mind and heart are not communicating clearly with each other, one will dominate the other. When our minds are in the lead, we suffer emotionally because we turn emotional data into an enemy. We seek to control all situations and relationships and maintain authority over emotions. When our hearts are in the lead, we tend to maintain the illusion that all is well. Whether the mind is in the lead or the heart, will is motivated by fear and the futile goal of control, not by a sense of internal security."(pp. 229-30) The developmental challenge of the person or organization whose center of gravity is the throat chakra is to establish communication and balance between feeling and thinking. To build the antaskarana between higher and lower manas, in Theosopheze, perhaps. But what is found in most Theosophical literature is a rigid hierarchical insistence that the mental is "higher" than the emotional, that adepts have to give up sex and other personal feelings, and so forth. Emotions are expressed in abundance, but there is a real unconsciousness of them, a dwelling consciously in thoughts and a denial of feelings, that is characteristic of Theosophical history from the early days on. For example, HPB and Olcott hated each other after 1885 and apparently never really communicated openly about it; spewed their feelings about to others but pretended it was all about things that could be grasped by the mind. This set up a pathological pattern for subsequent generations. Besant, Leadbeater and Krishnamurti had tremendous emotional energies in their relationship, but intellectualized and rationalized everything so that none of these issues were dealt with in a healthy way. Then Krishnamurti either experienced or feigned amnesia about it all, perpetuated the pattern of pretending to live on a mental plane while enmeshed in a very emotional/passionate situation with the Rajagopals. Denial everywhere you look. In recent years I have experienced very intense emotional energy directed my way from Theosophists, who to a man insist that the issues are not about feeling at all, purely about thinking, and that to perceive it any other way is a sign of weakness or imbalance, etc. So in short, and I have to run because someone needs to fax on this line, it appears that there's a systemic denial or avoidance of feeling and a pretense of rising above it into thinking, running through Theosophical history from its beginnings to the present. That's why there's such a failure to recognize that people need the practical experiential focus Titus was talking about. It's like a split-brain experiment. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and vice versa, and this has crippled the movement IMO. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:35:29 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 844 Message-ID: <970123135149_2024066978@emout15.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-23 01:16:50 EST, you write: << Their main complaint is that theosophy is too cerebral. It fails to feed the devotional side - no rituals, no spiritual practices. While giving some truths, no attempt is made to translate truths into meaning - emotional meaning as well as intellectual meaning. Without this translation it is difficult to know what to do practically with theosophical knowledge. It is too concentrated. >> This observation is quite true, hence, the need for peripheral groups like The Liberal Catholic Church, the Co-Masonic Order, the Order of the World Mother, the Egyptian Rite, the Order of the Mystic Star, the Krotona Drama ritual, the Theosophical Order of Service, etc., etc. All these organizations are siblings of the TS and were created, perhaps subconsciously, to satisfy the need for ritual, devotion and service. LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:36:49 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: How Theosophy has become stale Message-ID: <970123150433_1144320746@emout11.mail.aol.com> Well, as devotion makes me want to vomit, I don't miss it in the TS, but it does have a problem with experiential knowledge that severly limits its appeal in a world where experience is everything. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:40:31 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Ann, Chuck, and the Dry Well Message-ID: <970123150033_1692310628@emout18.mail.aol.com> Paul, The occult revival started back in the sixties when we all learned that it went real well with acid. But seriously, you're right about the ideas being so widely spread now that the TS has probably outlived its original usefulness, which means it should try to find a new use for itself or at least loosen its collar a little and do some breathing. Fortunately, in spite of the worst efforts of those who are in charge of making sure the lawn at Olcott gets mowed and the Adyar snakes are fed on a regular basis, the membership does its own thing and is not bound by the official limitations the organization has placed on itself. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:41:30 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking Message-ID: <970123150230_442115687@emout17.mail.aol.com> Ann, Krishnamurti resigned at the point of the absolute depth of the Great Depression. The public had more important things on its mind that the problems of the Theosophical Society. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:10:01 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <330fde05.29838830@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom: >>Logic is not a matter of opinion. It is not subject to whim. It is >>simple to show who is being logical and who isn't. >This sounds like pure fundamentalism. I think of fundamentalism as settling on specific premises and closed-mindedly adhering to them. It assumes that reality and one's perception of it are identical, being blind to the distinction between the two and to the fact that the only possible ultimate authority is one's own subjective judgment, believing, rather, that some objective truth or truths, or some other individual or group, can be a higher authority. It is impossible to eradicate all of one's own fundamentalism. Everyone inevitably regards their own ideas as superior to those of others, since, if some other idea was considered to be an improvement, it would automatically become one's own. Everything that everyone says has some fundamentalism and arrogance in it. There is nothing that is purely objective or purely subjective. Everything is a unique mixture of the two. I may have literally overstated how objective the laws of logic are somewhat, since there is some room for some debate about some of them, but, generally, they are highly objective. They are much easier to demonstrate than, say, whether Ken Griffey, Jr. or Barry Bonds is a better baseball player. I believe you overstated their subjectivity far more than I overstated their objectivity. Consider a syllogism of the type: Premise: If A, then B Premise: A Conclusion: B Although there may be all kinds of room for debate about the truth of the premises, I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming the premises are true. Unless my logic is mistaken, which is always possible, if someone concluded something other than B from this syllogism, they would have been illogical. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:43:29 -0500 From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970123174325_375470626@emout02.mail.aol.com> Richard Ihle writes--> Just curious. Kym writes--> Just curious? Hmmmm. I got the impression from your post that, really, you are dying to know whether or not I am a lesbian. Come on, admit it, Richard. Well, shocking as it sounds, not all feminists are lesbians, or man-haters. No, in this incarnation, I am in the heterosexual mode. Let us just say. . .my male-bashing is a form a merriment, and I prefer my men on the side. RI--> Sorry, just curious. If I had been "dying to know" I would have said so. For example, I am now dying to know whether a woman can actually have much luck in attracting and keeping guys once they realize that male-bashing is one of her forms of merriment. I would guess that her other "forms of merriment" would have to be very special to off-set something like this. Kym--> Now, are you ever going to answer my "horse" question? ["And I do find your comment 'make the horse go where they want' an interesting one. Perhaps you would expand on this?"] RI--> I was hoping to avoid this one since Tom will undoubtedly lose all respect for me. Let's just say that none of the women in my life have ever had the slightest difficulty in getting me to subordinate my interests or activities to theirs. Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:25:56 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Theosophy Classics on CD-ROM Message-ID: In message <199701221605.LAA04983@newman.cris.com>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >When I first subscribed to theos-l in 1993 I asked whether HPB's works >were going to put on a CD-ROM. John Algeo replied that it was a project >that being worked on in the Phillipines. I wonder how far they've gotten. Not as far as they had hoped, so far as I can tell. I had some brief e- mail with Vic Hao Chin (thanks to Eldon) but there was no satisfactory conclusion. In any event, it would appear from the material that *is* available that it is only the "holy" first editions of works by (say) HPB, Judge, etc., which are to be included. One snag in this is that these editions contain typos and other errors later corrected by HPB and Mead working together in the production of the 3rd (1895) edition of (for example) the Secret Doctrine. So - even if completed, the project, as I understand it to have been conceived, could be arguably flawed to some degree for quite mundane reasons. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:40:26 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: HBP and Olcott Message-ID: <199701240040.QAA07966@palrel3.hp.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote, [snip] > For example, HPB and Olcott hated each other after 1885 and > apparently never really communicated openly about it; spewed > their feelings about to others but pretended it was all about > things that could be grasped by the mind. Interesting. Where is this documented? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:55:08 GMT From: gbartle@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gregg Bartle) Subject: Theosophical history from below (?) Message-ID: <32e8fbaf.27705038@uclink4> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:14:56 -0500 (EST), K. Paul johnson wrote: >............................ Emotions are >expressed in abundance, but there is a real unconsciousness of >them, a dwelling consciously in thoughts and a denial of >feelings, that is characteristic of Theosophical history from >the early days on. This caused me to wonder if it is totally true of most of the members of the various TS's over the years. Just what have been the motivations of 'grassroots' members for joining? This is a serious and interesting question.Who have the thousands of individuals that have passed through the groups over the decades *really* been -Dry as Dust intellectuals (?) - declining petty bourgeois looking for a scientific sounding substitute for failed religions (?) - crazy little old ladies filling their idle hours (?) or just what? All of those pejoratives have been used to describe theosophists, but I suspect the reality has been *much* more complex. I'd like to ask if anyone knows if there have ever been any studies or histories done of Theosophy from below, examining the many and varied people attracted *to* the movement instead of from the top, from the point of view of the elite few that have lead the movement? I've not seen such work, but I suspect we might find that - despite the worst that has been done by leaders in one direction - many individuals have come and gone in the ranks who found their own ways to balance head and heart and hand. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:34:26 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <199701240134.RAA16160@proxy1.ba.best.com> >Mary P.: Premise: If A, then B Premise: A Conclusion: B Although there may be all kinds of room for debate about the truth of the premises, I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming the premises are true. Unless my logic is mistaken, which is always possible, if someone concluded something other than B from this syllogism, they would have been illogical. Thoa: Let's take A=Johnny trips over the curb, and B=Johnny falls Premise: If Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls Premise: Johnny trips over the curb Conclusion: Johnny falls But what if the conclusion is C=Johnny balances himself and does not fall? You have left out the C possibility, which could logically happen. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:33:50 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701240133.RAA15391@proxy1.ba.best.com> >Kym: I agree with your additional observation. Women have been taught to regard their bodies with contempt. What is happening to women in the Middle East is beyond horrific. America, too, in its own way, mocks the female body. Women need to learn to feel good about their bodies, restore respect and pride. However, there will come a day when Madonna's body fails to attract what she desires or sends the message she desires. Madonna's image, perceived by young girls, does not hold in high esteem the value of cerebral cultivation. Madonna may find her power fleeting, and she may have to "deal with it." The health of the body and the health of the mind are vitally important; however, the body is secondary, it should serve the mind. I fear that too many young women are internalizing the opposite reasoning. ********** Thoa: Yes, young women are focusing too much on how to attract a man instead of focusing on their self-development. However, from what I heard, all that is on a young man's mind is attracting the opposite sex (I apologize for not mentioning homosexual relationships, but I am focusing on the man-woman thing). I've heard from some men that during their adolescence, women terrify the Jesus out of them. To go through the first stage of attraction, they both are concerned with how to make their bodies attractive to the opposite sex according to the dictates of society of what an attractive body is. The norm used to be young men pump iron and become jocks, and young women curl their hair, wear makeup and fitted clothing. For young men, due to the media hype of rock stars and bad boys, the attraction changed toward wild skinny young men (Maybe with the computer generation, the attraction norm will be the Bill Gates type. That type made Ann swoon.=o)) However, young men also had the added incentive of being encouraged into a good education and a good career. Unfortunately for young women, the attraction factor has remained more or less the same. Beauty magazines of the past feature dainty, bodily proportional, skinny, young women. Beauty magazines of the present feature dainty, bodily proportional, skinny, young women. Although there were attempts to feature older women and athletic women, the norm remains the same. There are no women with big hips, there are no women past 30, there are no women over 120 lbs., there are no short women, and there are few non-white women. The focus is woefully more on fitting the ideal physical instead of on developing the intellect or the creative side. It's no wonder that women dieted down to beyond their normal weight, have breast implants, wrinkles removed, liposuction, and 3" spiked heels that hurt their spine and feet. To make up for the oppression of having to fit into the beauty norm, the moral norm, or the subservient norm, women responded in several ways. Women such as Madonna rebelled against her Catholic background by becoming athletic, lusty, and sacrilegious. Women in the corporate environment became just as overworked, domineering, and insensitive as their male counterparts. Being a bitch became a thing to be proud of. Some women forgo wearing makeup, shaving their legs, and a need for male companionship. Some women deny qualities considered feminine such as emotion, sensitivity, and nurturing. Denying all those "feminine" qualities enables them to deny that we are in what is considered a "patriarchal" society that encourages power, dominance, and intellect over the intuitive. This enables the women to say that to succeed, they have to have power, dominance, and the intellectual over the intuitive. IMO, this also is off-balanced. Any human being needs a balance of the body, the intellect, and the creative. If any of it is denied, there will be extreme consequences. A young woman growing up nowadays receive many confused signals. She is confused by her mother, who tells her that she should be a decent girl, that she should develop good housewifely skills to keep her man, that she should look attractive in order to catch a husband, that she should be realistic with her career goals, that she needs to prepare herself to be a good wife and mother. She is also confused by examples set by her mother, particularly if her mother constantly defers to her husband in decision making, puts up with infidelity, or puts up with abuse. The young woman is also confused by feminists. She feels guilty if she has a need to make herself attractive to men. She feels guilty if she is attracted to men, and thinks often of them. The young woman is confused by the sexual female image given out by female stars such as Madonna. Should she wear bras in public, and flaunt her sexuality? Should she show that sexy attitude? Is she being too prudish? I think that a woman nowadays is realizing that the key is for her to respect herself, do what she feels comfortable with, and disregard what societal opinions are. She can love her breasts, her vagina, and her ovaries. She can be attractive in ways that are comfortable to her, even if that way causes men to gaze at her. She can strive for a rewarding career without having to give in to bitchiness. She can use her intuitive and community sense as an asset to her career. She can freely express her opinions. She can have a rewarding, sharing and loving relationship with a man. She can have wonderful sex with a man in which she tells him her sexual needs. She can be nurturing to her children along with her husband. She and her husband can do the cooking and housekeeping together. She can have such a love for her body, her intellect, and her creative, that when old age hits, she would have grown into a richer and attractive older woman. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:14:49 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Carrot Consequences Message-ID: In message <199701220532.WAA02778@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >Tom wrote: > >>I cannot allow that. > >[Kym drops to the floor in sidesplitting laughter] > > > >Kym > Time for another carrot transformation? 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, 23 Jan 1997 20:52:07 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the dry well Message-ID: <199701240205.VAA10691@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > TPH >has published a lot of fine books by creative authors-- but >they haven't been Theosophists and haven't written about >Theosophy. Sorry, I don't agree. I take the 3rd object to mean that we study anything at the forefront of knowledge. That's what many of these books are doing, describing the forefront of knowledge. To me, that's studying 20th century Theosophy & 21st cent. HPB et al is history. Repeated 20 million times over, it grows stale. If you don't take what they wrote and build on it, you might as well be dead. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:04:24 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701240204.SAA02910@proxy1.ba.best.com> >M. Poppins: I'll take whatever I can get. Logic isn't much help sometimes. I wish some women would quit picking on men so much. It's just not fair! Thoa (patting Mary on the back): There, there...Here's some tissue. It isn't easy being absolutely perfect. Kym, Ann, shall we ease the pressure on this poor guy? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:07:17 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: truht/consequences Message-ID: <199701240221.VAA15428@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Dear Ann, Isis has been my favorite woman for quite some time too. She's the motherly one, who tries to heal eveybody without being judgemental about who the person is. If you hurt, she heals. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:22:45 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: truth/consequences Message-ID: <199701240236.VAA20188@ultra1.dreamscape.com> > I am now dying to know whether a woman can actually have much >luck in attracting and keeping guys once they realize that male-bashing is >one of her forms of merriment. I would guess that her other "forms of >merriment" would have to be very special to off-set something like this. > That's mean! Just because Kym is brave and angry enough to speak up for herself and us after a few thousand years of men abusing women ... Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:19:44 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: In message <199701220403.UAA11321@m2.sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >>JHE >>Your explanation seems quite different from the one Stan Trelor >>published in the CANADIAN THEOSOPHIST at the time. What is the >>source of your information here? > > This is what the Lodges were told. > > Bart Lidofsky > I think JHE wants to know *by whom* the lodges were told, and in what words. So do I and others. You appear to be saying that you have this information, but also unwilling to make it available to the list. Maybe I am reading this wrongly, in which case I apologise, but it is quite confusing on the surface. 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, 23 Jan 1997 21:11:24 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theosophical history from below (?) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970124031124.006fc24c@mail.eden.com> At 08:11 PM 1/23/97 -0500, gbartle@uclink.berkeley.edu (Gregg Bartle) wrote: >On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:14:56 -0500 (EST), K. Paul johnson wrote: > >>............................ Emotions are >>expressed in abundance, but there is a real unconsciousness of >>them, a dwelling consciously in thoughts and a denial of >>feelings, that is characteristic of Theosophical history from >>the early days on. > >This caused me to wonder if it is totally true of most of the members >of the various TS's over the years. Just what have been the >motivations of 'grassroots' members for joining? This is a serious >and interesting question.Who have the thousands of individuals that ========================================================= MKR: Over the years I have had occasions to inquire of members as to how they found TS/Theosophy and at times I have been told fascinating stories. If anyone studies this issue of motivation of joining, one may have to stratify by national background as well. For example, most of the members in India may not have joined looking for personal or spiritual growth or to learn techniques of breathing, travel in astral, mental, and higher worlds or practical instructions on concentration or meditation etc. In any case, the findings would be very interesting to all of us, if ever one is done. ...MK Ramadoss ================================================= >have passed through the groups over the decades *really* been -Dry as >Dust intellectuals (?) - declining petty bourgeois looking for a >scientific sounding substitute for failed religions (?) - crazy little >old ladies filling their idle hours (?) or just what? All of those >pejoratives have been used to describe theosophists, but I suspect the >reality has been *much* more complex. > >I'd like to ask if anyone knows if there have ever been any studies or >histories done of Theosophy from below, examining the many and varied >people attracted *to* the movement instead of from the top, from the >point of view of the elite few that have lead the movement? I've not >seen such work, but I suspect we might find that - despite the worst >that has been done by leaders in one direction - many individuals have >come and gone in the ranks who found their own ways to balance head >and heart and hand. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:11:27 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970124031127.00688e44@mail.eden.com> At 03:57 PM 1/22/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: K. Paul Johnson >> >> What I don't understand and would like to throw out for >> discussion is how Theosophy has become so stale and dry as a >> movement, so dominated by judgment and lacking in perception. >> I cannot think of a really fresh outlook or stirring new >> perception that has emerged in Theosophical literature in >> decades. And yet the movement began with a person who was much >> more an intuitive than a thinking type. Somewhere along the >> line, maybe in the wake of Krishnamurti's defection, the >> intuitive side seems to have shriveled up and died. What >> happened? > >Perhaps it was a delliberate move NOT to stir the waters, because that >would have put the movement in the possible danger of looking >too avant-garde. And it was deemed better to look conservative by >raking over the coals of the past rather than stirring up any new >flames. Being conservative and historical looked dignified, rather the >possibility of looking foolish if the innovative failed. Maybe when K left TS, there was >so much pain and discreditation of what so many had put their hopes >on, no one wanted to take the chance of exploring anything new. > >Not having that much knowledge about TS history I wonder what the >public's reaction was to K's resignation and how TS was viewed from >their angle. Maybe it cut a wound so deep that no one want to go in >that direction, for fear it will happen again. > >-AEB ======================================= Dear Ann: I wonder whether the public really cared whether K resigned or not. Public in general is more interested in scandals and other stuff that hits tabloid. The impact of K's resignation was more on TS members. When K issued his famous "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement and disbanded all organizations he was heading, there was real turmoil across the membership from Annie Besant down to the grass roots. K was administering truth from his own point of view to the people who had built up various organizations for his use. He declined the disciples announced for him, rejected all the modes of organized access to the forces of inner planes, said the system of master and pupil was injurious, declared that ceremonies were hindrances, not helps, and reverted uncompromisingly to the position that in order to have spiritualiy a man/woman must lean upon no thing or person outside of himself. When he cast off his connection with the TS because, he said, it was *addicted* to these things. The problem/confusion for rank and file membership was compounded by the fact that Besant suspended the ES for a year. In these circumstances, many left the TS. Since that time, the membership has never recovered. Historically looking, there is also the fact TS has never had any dynamic leader/organizer like Besant, even though those who succeeded her had impressing academic credentials from well known institutions. Just thought I should add my 2 cents worth. MK Ramadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:35:37 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Kym's men Message-ID: In message <199701230547.WAA01441@snowden.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >I prefer my men on >the side. Right or 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, 23 Jan 1997 21:18:46 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Kym's men Message-ID: <32E837D9.2877@micron.net> Alan writes: > >(Kym) I prefer my men on > >the side. > > Right or left? Both and at the same time. . . "Sex is one of the nine reasons for reincarnation. The other eight are unimportant." Henry Miller Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:26:38 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Throat Chakra Issues Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970124042638.006e6ab0@mail.eden.com> At 03:14 PM 1/23/97 -0500, "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: > >everywhere you look. In recent years I have experienced very >intense emotional energy directed my way from Theosophists, who >to a man insist that the issues are not about feeling at all, >purely about thinking, and that to perceive it any other way is >a sign of weakness or imbalance, etc. So in short, and I have >to run because someone needs to fax on this line, it appears I am just curious if the intense emotional energy directed at you, when sensed by you, was it directed via writings, theos-l or other media. If it is not thru one of these medium, is it possible to identify with certainty what the source is. I am bringing this up because, being somewhat down to earth person I am, I have very very rarely personally sensed any intense emotional energy + or - directed towards me. MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:41:37 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: [R] Alice Bailey - What attracts people to her writings? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970124044137.006e63bc@mail.eden.com> +++++++++++++++++++++++<<<<<<+++++++++++++++++++ Murray wrote: Whatever the intellectual components to the Boston situation, I am not qualified to speak authoritatively, but there is truth in other dimensions too - emotional and subjective, for instance. In the 30 or so years I've been in the TS, the Bailey question has been one of the biggest dividing factors. The bitterest fights in the NZ TS scene have been underpinned by distrust of versus loyalty to Alice Bailey, with people in the E.S. usually being distrustful of her, in my experience. I do not know much about Alice Bailey's philosophy and I am curious to find out what it is that attracts individuals as well as loyalty to her. May be some one who has a first hand understanding/experience in observing what has been going on, it would be in interesting to get a feedback. Such feedback also can throw light on the drawbacks of the other philosophies - HPB, Judge, AB, CWL, GSA, CJ etc. etc. When the issues are very clearly understood, all distrust and all the fall outs of it will be gone, hopefully. True searchers of Truth, will be loyal to Truth and Truth along and will not follow any particular personality. After all all of us are students searching for Truth. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 21:47:56 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences (Take two) Message-ID: <199701240447.VAA22183@snowden.micron.net> Richard writes: >For example, I am now dying to know whether a woman can actually have much >luck in attracting and keeping guys once they realize that male-bashing is >one of her forms of merriment. It's not what you do, Richard, but how you do it. >I would guess that her other "forms of >merriment" would have to be very special to off-set something like this. I'm resisting the urge to boast yet further. >I was hoping to avoid this one since Tom will undoubtedly lose all respect >for me. I, too, fear losing Tom's respect. God forbid. >Let's just say that none of the women in my life have ever had the >slightest difficulty in getting me to subordinate my interests or activities >to theirs. Really?! If you're free, Richard, give me a call. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:08:08 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: truth/consequences Message-ID: <970123235956_1511295436@emout01.mail.aol.com> Liesel writes--> That's mean! Just because Kym is brave and angry enough to speak up for herself and us after a few thousand years of men abusing women ... Richard Ihle writes--> Well, first of all, dear Liesel, I do not think Kym was actually being serious when she said that "male-bashing" was one of her "forms of merriment." However, if male-bashing was indeed some woman's regular way of enjoying herself, then the woman might indeed have a little problem in "getting and keeping men," don't you think? Anyway, I don't see why I have to keep hearing about the thousands of years men have abused women when I have only done it myself for a few decades at most. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 97 21:41:05 -0800 From: Richard Trump Subject: Fwd: Blavatsky Net update Message-ID: <199701240559.VAA21839@intergate.glenn-co.k12.ca.us> -- [ From: Richard Trump * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] -- FYI ------- FORWARD, Original message follows ------- > Date: Thursday, 23-Jan-97 12:34 PM > From: scribe@blavatsky.org \ Internet: (scribe@blavatsky.org) > To: scribe@blavatsky.org \ Internet: (scribe@blavatsky.org) > Subject: Blavatsky Net update Update to Blavatsky Net at www.blavatsky.org: 1. The full text of 64 articles by Blavatsky is now online - accessible from the home page. They have taken longer to do than anticipated but the result is to a very high standard of quality. They use proper footnotes (with a return to local context), image files for greek passages, and preserve Blavatsky's distinctive typographic features of small capitals in places and italics. The remaining 172 articles will be coming online more slowly than previously thought but to the same high standards. 2. The new email for scribe is: scribe@blavatsky.org (The other email will soon become invalid.) Scribe. ------- FORWARD, End of original message ------- Rich -- ************************************************* Even as Truth, does Error have its lovers. Pythagoras ************************************************* From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 24 01:32:20 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Carrot Consequences Message-ID: <199701240632.BAA02503@envirolink.org> Dr. A.M.Bain writes: >In message <199701220532.WAA02778@snowden.micron.net>, >kymsmith@micron.net writes >>Tom wrote: >> >>>I cannot allow that. >> >>[Kym drops to the floor in sidesplitting laughter] >> >>Kym >> >Time for another carrot transformation? > >Alan :-) There can be only one... ---Triaist, the Highlander Carrot. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri Jan 24 01:35:02 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Kym's men Message-ID: <199701240635.BAA02595@envirolink.org> kymsmith@micron.net writes: >Alan writes: > >> >(Kym) I prefer my men on >> >the side. >> >> Right or left? > >Both and at the same time. . . > >"Sex is one of the nine reasons for reincarnation. The other eight are >unimportant." > > Henry Miller Whoa...did I miss something again? How many men was that? BTW, nice quote. *grin* --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:55:21 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <32fe781b.2824408@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Thoa wrote: >M. Poppins: >>I'll take whatever I can get. Logic isn't much help sometimes. I wish >>some women would quit picking on men so much. It's just not fair! >Thoa (patting Mary on the back): >There, there...Here's some tissue. It isn't easy being absolutely perfect. >Kym, Ann, shall we ease the pressure on this poor guy? You'll be sorry if you do. I would see that as weakness, the sure sign of intolerable imperfection. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:55:25 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences (Take two) Message-ID: <32fd767c.2408626@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Kym wrote: Richard writes: >>For example, I am now dying to know whether a woman can actually have >>much luck in attracting and keeping guys once they realize that >>male-bashing is one of her forms of merriment. >It's not what you do, Richard, but how you do it. On "NYPD Blue" this past Tuesday night, they had a video of someone who gets off on crushing worms. You're not one of _those_, are you? >>I would guess that her other "forms of >>merriment" would have to be very special to off-set something like this. >I'm resisting the urge to boast yet further. You're so humble! >>I was hoping to avoid this one since Tom will undoubtedly lose all respect >>for me. >I, too, fear losing Tom's respect. God forbid. That example of sarcasm just cost you my respect. It was a lot, too. >>Let's just say that none of the women in my life have ever had the >>slightest difficulty in getting me to subordinate my interests or activities >>to theirs. >Really?! If you're free, Richard, give me a call. . . What about me? I like being demeaned more than Richard does. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 08:55:34 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <32ff7885.2929424@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> The Vietnamese Terror wrote: >>Mary P.: >Premise: If A, then B >Premise: A >Conclusion: B > >Although there may be all kinds of room for debate about the truth of the >premises, I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming the >premises are true. Unless my logic is mistaken, which is always possible, >if someone concluded something other than B from this syllogism, they would >have been illogical. > >Thoa: >Let's take A=Johnny trips over the curb, and >B=Johnny falls > >Premise: If Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls >Premise: Johnny trips over the curb >Conclusion: Johnny falls > >But what if the conclusion is C=Johnny balances himself and does not fall? >You have left out the C possibility, which could logically happen. If these premises are true, Johnny could not balance himself and not fall. C is only possible if one of the premises is false. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 06:00:05 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970123224238_1859322937@emout15.mail.aol.com> Murray Stentiford--> And if mystical experience (wish-washy term - I mean something real, strong,overwhelming, surprising beyond belief) can lift us out of ourselves, back to the connectedness, joy and innate power that I reckon we all remember deep down somewhere under all the socially-deposited layers, then, my God, no wonder people seek for it, not knowing quite what they're looking for, in sex and love which are, for many, the only places they are likely to get the faintest hint of what's in store for them beyond their wildest longings and imagination. Richard Ihle writes--> Get a grip on yourself, Murray. You know you're never going to get any chicks unless you can first somehow get them thinking that you'll be doing ~them~ a favor. . . . (Actually, it was a wonderful post.) Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 10:20:39 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Gregg's question, Liesel's comment Message-ID: <199701241520.KAA26006@leo.vsla.edu> Gregg, I don't think the average Theosophist in the Adyar TS has the same kind of inner fragmentation or fixation or whatever it is that characterizes the lead figures. But know of no sociological study about what kinds of people join. My observation of Adyar members is that they are a very hang-loose, diverse, eclectic, tolerant bunch quite comfortable with feeling as well as thinking. It's just the elite that is repressed, weird, acting out negative feelings while pretending they're acting on noble principles, etc.-- but that's armchair psychology. Oh--- sorry not to refer to this one in the header, but the hostility between HPB and Olcott is documented most recently in the current issue of Theosophical History which has letters from HPB to Judge running down Olcott. Other sources for this would be Campbell's Ancient Wisdom Revived, Prothero's The White Buddhist, the ULT histories of the Theosophical movement, for starters. Basically HPB felt, with some justification, that HSO left her twisting in the breeze after the SPR investigation. HSO felt, with some justification, that a person he trusted totally who bragged to others about being able to manipulate him as a "psychologized baby" --deserved to be left twisting in the breeze. In ODL he says the worst moment of his life was when he read what HPB said about him in a letter that Hodgson obtained. Liesel, I agree with you that the TPH books by people like Jean Houston or Serge King are worthwhile, and that they're theosophical in the general sense. But so are a bunch of books that are published by many other people. As for Theosophical in the narrower sense, they publish those too-- but there's nothing fresh or stimulating about them. What I'm saying is that there should be a blending of the two; things that relate HPB and Theosophical teachings to the broader spectrum of theosophical currents. And that is hardly happening, with a few exceptions like Shirley Nicholson's Ancient Wisdom, Modern Insight-- ten years old now. You should know that I of all people am not advocating recycling the same old HPB orthodoxies! But if HPB is to be at all relevant she needs to be *made* relevant. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:10:14 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Elitus Message-ID: "What I want is something difficult and translucent, like birdsong in a time of war." -Odysseus Elitus ************************************************************* Chirp chirp, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 11:31:31 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Aquarian conjunction Message-ID: <199701241631.LAA05256@leo.vsla.edu> Mark R. asked when was the last time a planetary configuration like the present one occurred. That depends on what you mean by "like the present one." The Gaia people on TV are saying 200 years, but in fact the last time that Jupiter, Uranus, the Sun, Mercury and Venus were conjunct in Aquarius was (uh-oh) February 1914. That makes it seem like an omen of war, but that was a war in which many technological innovations occurred, and when I look at The Timetables of History I see all these breakthroughs for 1914: James Jeans writes "Radiation and the Quantum Theory", Robert Goddard begins rocketry experiments, John B. Watson launches behaviorism in psychology with his book *Behavior*, and the first successful heart surgery was performed (on a dog) by Nobel Prize-winner Alexis Carrel. The categories in this book are A. History/Politics, B. Literature/Theatre, C. Religion/Philosophy/Learning, D., Visual Arts, E. Music, F., Science/Technology/Growth, and G. Daily Life. In 1914 the war occupied column A., but none of the others except F. contained things particularly memorable. Because the guy on TV had said "not in over 200 years" I started looking for Jupiter/Uranus conjunctions in Aquarius working backwards from 1800, and the first one was in the summer of 1665. But in February before and after that, when the Sun, Mercury and Venus might have conjoined the Jupiter/Uranus, they were out of orb. Looking at The Timetables for that year, again nothing but column F. is memorable. To show how unmemorable they are, I'll give the first item from each: Anne, future queen of Britain, born; Samuel Coster, Dutch dramatist, dies; John Bunyan published *The Holy City*, Bernini finished high altar, St. Peter's; Giuseppe Aldrovandini, composer, dies; First modern census taken in Quebec. BUT look at these scientific/technological developments: Giovanni Cassini deterrmines rotations of Jupiter, Mars, and Venus; Robert Hooke writes "Micrigrahia" on the microscope; Isaac Newton experiments on gravitation and invents differential calculus. So far, my theory that Jupiter/Uranus in Aquarius produces breakthroughs in science or technology is holding up. But it turns out the guy on TV was wrong, as seen in the case of 1914. So I looked through the 19th century and found (Theosophists take not) that Jupiter/Uranus conjunct in Aquarius presided over the birth of Mme. Blavatsky in 1831, and in February of that year were joined by the Sun, Mercury and Venus. Looking into the Timetables for that year: again to be fair I'll give the top item in each category, A., Polish Diet declares independence, B., Balzac writes La Peau de Chagrin, C., HPB born, D., Reinhold Begas, sculptor, born, E., Bellini has two operas performed, and G., great cholera pandemic begins in India. (Oh, by the way, 1665 brought the Great Plague of London, which killed almost 70,000.) Column F again has the major news for the year: Chloroform simultaneously invented in Samuel Guthrie, American, and Justus von Leibig, Germany. (This is interesting in that the discovery of calculus was also simultaneous between Newton and Leibnitz-- indicating in both cases that the "time was ripe" and suggesting scientific/technological competition between German and Anglo/American that continued in the World Wars!!) Also, Charles Darwin set sail on The Beagle, Michael Faraday conducts experiments demonstrating discovery of electromagnetic induction, birth of James Clerk Maxwell who theorized that light and electromagnetism have identical source, Sir James Clark Ross determines position of magnetic North Pole (do we detect a theme here?) Thanks, Mark, for making me waste an hour of work time, it was fun :) and enlightening, maybe. Prophecies: we're probably in for a year of major scientific breakthroughs, but there's also a danger of outbreaks of epidemics or war. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 06:11:23 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970125122339.1e074872@iprolink.co.nz> Tom, >>Certainly, I'd like to put behind me some of the little word-bundles I've >>put together! > >I cringe at much of what I've said, more in person than in writing, >though. It seems to be a common feeling among those who care about being >truthful. Yes, I would agree. The comparison between what you're trying to express and how it actually comes out can be a bit painful times. The light within, leading. Pressure within, too, it seems sometimes. Reminds me of hearing once that the great violinist, David Oistrakh, having given a splendid concert in New Zealand, was found after the applause had finally subsided, in his back-stage room, working away at some musical passage in a work he had just played, trying to make it better. >>> .... If Kym succeeds in her goal to >>>single-handedly destroy all sexism and the sense of superiority I so >>>desperately cling to, I would be left with no emotional support. I >>>cannot allow that. > >>You mean you need some emotional support? > >I'll take whatever I can get. Logic isn't much help sometimes. I wish >some women would quit picking on men so much. It's just not fair! Sometimes I think you ask for all the trouble you get on this list. Most times, actually. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 07:28:49 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970125134105.1edf531c@iprolink.co.nz> Richard, >Get a grip on yourself, Murray. I beg your pardon. >You know you're never going to get any >chicks unless you can first somehow get them thinking that you'll be doing >~them~ a favor. . . . Don't go blowing any male secrets, now, Richard. I still have hopes for theos-l. >(Actually, it was a wonderful post.) Thanks. Just an insight I tried to coil up in words. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 07:28:52 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970125134108.1edfe016@iprolink.co.nz> Thoa (and Tom), >Let's take A=Johnny trips over the curb, and >B=Johnny falls > >Premise: If Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls >Premise: Johnny trips over the curb >Conclusion: Johnny falls > >But what if the conclusion is C=Johnny balances himself and does not fall? >You have left out the C possibility, which could logically happen. Yes, this can happen in the physical world, of course, but this just means you began with a logical model which didn't fit the reality (reality, meaning the experiencable universe. Leave aside the high-falutin' absolutist stuff for now). The physical situation obviously has more forkings or potential consequences than the logical one. The logical pattern was kind of like an I shape, and it sure doesn't fit the shape of a Y very well. But that's easily fixed - you just design a logical model in the shape of a Y or, if you want to get super-adventurous, like half a tree, to cover all the crazy unlikely outcomes that could follow from that one innocent action. The story-tellers amongst us could run riot with the outcomes of Johnny tripping over the curb. And that brings me to the idea that a logical proposition is a form, ie a pattern of relationship between the things at each end, with the characteristic of utter clarity and stability within its own scope, that is, once the limits and assumptions have been put in place for it to live within. Furthermore, logic is such an interesting and useful tool to use because we can use it to test our thinking, as well as make predictions about the physical world - all as long as the pattern (which is determined considerably by the constraints, ie assumptions and meanings of the terms) is relevant or accurate enough for the purpose. And if it isn't, well we put it aside and try to find a better pattern, or a better reality! Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 07:28:56 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970125134112.1edfe21a@iprolink.co.nz> Thoa and Kym >However, from what I heard, all that is >on a young man's mind is attracting the opposite sex (I apologize for not >mentioning homosexual relationships, but I am focusing on the man-woman >thing). I'm glad you made that apology and would like to join in, with regard to the various posts I've written on sexuality and polarity over the last couple of months. I certainly included homosexual relationships in my mind as I was writing, but did not take the time to say so. >I've heard from some men that during their adolescence, women >terrify the Jesus out of them. That'd be about right, from my experience. It'd be a bit hard to get a young man to admit it, though! Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:00:45 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: the dry well Message-ID: <9701242100.AA16264@toto.csustan.edu> >> TPH >>has published a lot of fine books by creative authors-- but >>they haven't been Theosophists and haven't written about >>Theosophy. > LFD >Sorry, I don't agree. I take the 3rd object to mean that we >study anything at the forefront of knowledge. That's what many >of these books are doing, describing the forefront of knowledge. >To me, that's studying 20th century Theosophy & 21st cent. HPB >et al is history. Repeated 20 million times over, it grows >stale. If you don't take what they wrote and build on it, you >might as well be dead. > >Liesel JHE I have a third point of view on this. While agreeing with the first comment, I also agree with Liesel that we need to build upon HPB wrote. I think HPB was clear that she did not want her writings canonized as holy writ, rather, she hoped that later generations of Theosophists would study her works and follow up on its leads. Her writings are so rich with hints and suggestive statements begging to be researched. I think this kind of work, if it had been pursued could have led to thousands of volumes of fresh and interesting material, that would have led to innovations of practical application for all of humanity. But alas, the Adyar TS never did this kind of follow up. Instead, it became preoccupied with Krishnamurti as the returned Christ. In contrast, the Point Loma TS did some research that was spun off of HPB's writings. They produced some very interesting research papers on anthropology, physics, Geology, meso-American and Biblical history. But much more could have been done if the Point Loma TS remained stable, and that research continued after 1951. The Anthroposophical Society also took HPB's que and developed theories and applications in education and agriculture. Most of their agricultural applications were appropriated by Rodale and are widely practiced under the label "organic gardening," but much of this came from the Anthroposophical "Biodynamic Gardening." I think there is much more to do, but it is now mostly being done in academic and scientific circles which would never associate itself with Theosophy. How often I find academic or independently written works which shamelessly draw from HPB's writings without any acknowledgment whatsoever. HPB made a prediction in the S.D. that by the end of this century her secret doctrine teachings would be vindicated. I think that to a small extent her prediction is coming to fruition. But what would have happened if the program was followed--if Theosophy had not been discredited by the failed Krishnamurti movement? What would have happened, if instead, generations of Theosophical scholars had been working ceaselessly for the last hundred years researching HPB's leads and publishing the results? HPB's hints are already being pursued in physics, anthropology, astronomy, Biblical studies etc. Likely, most of these researchers know nothing about HPB or her writings, but it is interesting that they are pursuing the very questions that HPB raised and they are moving in the direction that she pointed. For instance, HPB's then absurd statement concerning the divisibility of the atom when pursued by Rutherford and Millikin yielded the atomic age. Her hints and dating of the age of physical humanity is far closer to current science than in her time. But there is still far more to be done. For instance, her writings are full of hints concerning medicine that have not been followed up. Though the Quest book line occasionally publishes an interesting book (interesting to me), they are drawing from independent authors most of whom are involved in very different traditions. I believe that if the TS had followed up on the original writings, they would have been the ones to publish books like THE TAO OF PHYSICS. The quest book line would be full of cutting edge books on subjects like naturopathy, astrophysics, biblical archeology, chaos theory, etc. The TPH would also be vested in publishing and keeping in print good translations of the world scriptures. Adyar began such a program under the impetus of HPB and Olcott, but was abandoned when Krishnamurti became the primary occupation. Today, I think the problem with the Adyar society is that with the advent of Krishnamurti, they cut their lines to the original impulse begun by HPB, Judge and Olcott. When Krishnamurti baled out in 1930, Adyar was left with nothing. Arundale took the Presidency, ignored Krishnamurti, but was so influenced by Besant's memory, he was unable to reestablish a connection to the founders. When Arundale died in 1945, the membership of the TS was at an all time low. I think the Adyar TS continues to flounder without direction. The inner group still holds ties to Arundale's "Theosophy is everything" philosophy, while clinging to the writings of the second generation Theosophists (Besant, CWL, Jinarajadasa, Rogers etc.). Those who advocate the return to the original program have, without exception (as far as I have observed), been driven out of the TS or marginalized. Perhaps someday, the Adyar TS may turn around and reestablish a connection to its roots, but as time passes, this seems to become more and more unlikely. ------------------------------------------ |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | ------------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:40:50 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Assumptions of Logical Reasoning Message-ID: <32E92C62.48F7@worldnet.att.net> Tom: >Although there may be all kinds of room for debate about the truth of >the premises, I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming >the premises are true. Unless my logic is mistaken, ... No, I wouldn't say that your logic is mistaken. Rather, I would say that your premise is flawed. "It is simple to show who is being logical and who isn't" is a flawed conclusion that you reached from equally flawed premises or assumptions. Fact is, its devilishly hard, if not impossible in many cases, to tell who is "logical" and who isn't. We seldom work with the same rules. Any argument that begins with wrong assumptions is doomed to appear as flawed logic, even though it stands the tests of logic and reason--the conclusions derived are only as good as the assumptions (garbage in equals garbage out, and so on). You say, "I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming the premises are true." And my response is, Ah, but how do you know for a fact that your premises are true? Except for general agreement (which counts for nothing insofar as Truth is concerned) and experience (which always tends to confirm our beliefs) how can anyone know for sure? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:57:38 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Theosophists Coming and Going Message-ID: <32E93052.3A30@worldnet.att.net> Not that I know of, but there is a whole bunch of historical data out there in bits and pieces that could be put together. Basically there are two types of theosophists, (1) those who seek Truth via experience (meditation, contemplation, ritual, service, or whatever) and (2) those who seek Truth via the intellect (reading, studying, memorizing, discussing, or whatever). We have heard a lot of discussion about these two avenues on theos-l in the past. The two do NOT see eye-to-eye in most cases. History shows that most of the number 1 types will leave after a time, some to form their own groups. Number 2 types tend to stay on, happy and content with the reams of information available in the TS libraries and sometimes adding their own to the pile. Of course, its not all as clear cut as I make it out here. I myself, for example, began as a type 2, and only later changed to a type 1. Having been in both camps, I feel I can understand both perspectives, and thus I am still in the TS tent (though standing close to an exit). I am aware of a few people who came to the TSs looking for Truth, and left after a year or so. Perhaps they wanted more than books to read? Perhaps they wanted to dauble in the 3rd Objective, and were reprimanded? I don't know. My own magical persuits have been quietly tolerated, so I know that patience and tolerance does exist in the TSs. But, as I say, I was a type 2 for many years, and this gave everyone time to adjust to me before my books were published. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:06:13 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701250006.QAA00384@proxy1.ba.best.com> Richard Ihle writes--> >Get a grip on yourself, Murray. You know you're never going to get any >chicks unless you can first somehow get them thinking that you'll be doing >~them~ a favor. . . . Thoa: I've had a few men approaching me thinking that they're doing me a favor. Boy, did they get the heave-ho. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:05:22 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <199701250005.QAA29509@proxy1.ba.best.com> Mary Poppins: >The Vietnamese Terror wrote: >>>Mary P.: >>>Premise: If A, then B >>>Premise: A >>>Conclusion: B >>> >>>Although there may be all kinds of room for debate about the truth of the >>>premises, I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming the >>>premises are true. Unless my logic is mistaken, which is always possible, >>>if someone concluded something other than B from this syllogism, they would >>>have been illogical. >>> >>>Thoa: >>Let's take A=Johnny trips over the curb, and >>B=Johnny falls >> >>Premise: If Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls >>Premise: Johnny trips over the curb >>Conclusion: Johnny falls >> >>But what if the conclusion is C=Johnny balances himself and does not fall? >>You have left out the C possibility, which could logically happen. >If these premises are true, Johnny could not balance himself and not fall. >C is only possible if one of the premises is false. Mary, what I was trying to say is that you cannot squeeze life and astrallife into a cut and dry logic. The problem with a cut and dry logic is that you exclude other possibilities. The logic equation above seems self-evident. You witnessed Johnny tripping over the curb and falling. In the conclusion, you are only repeating the consequence of what you have just seen. Duh! The danger comes when people jump to conclusions based on their premises which may seem self-evident and which may be false. Johnny did not trip, he skipped. Johnny did not fall, he did a cartwheel. Even Einstein's long accepted equation of E=Mc**2 was proven inaccurate. What you said is true of the logic. However, that logic is almost useless when there can be endless variations of the premise, some so similar to the original premise that you end up mistaking it for the original premise, and therefore, mistaken premises, mistaken conclusion. The American Terror (I was naturalized) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 16:44:13 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Intrapsychic theorems Message-ID: <32E95756.96E@withoutwalls.com> Intrapsychic Theorems 1) "Yes-No" is not merely planar. 2) "Full" is not a linear goal. 3) "Void" is to "No-Thing" as "No-Thing" is to "Not even a little thing", or vice-versa or neither. 4) "Fear" is cold, "Trust" is warm. 5) We are afraid of what we don't like. 6) The shadow side of "man" is stupid. Mark -------- WITHOUT WALLS: An Internet Art Space http://www.withoutwalls.com E-mail: mark@withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 01:04:07 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Assumptions of Logical Reasoning Message-ID: <32ee4d23.25613230@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >its devilishly hard, if not impossible in many cases, to tell who is "logical" >and who isn't. I believe you really mean to say that it is difficult to determine the truth of premises. >Any argument that begins with wrong assumptions is doomed to appear as >flawed logic, even though it stands the tests of logic and reason--the >conclusions derived are only as good as the assumptions (garbage in >equals garbage out, and so on). I don't see why a conclusion that stands the test of logic would appear as flawed logic. >You say, "I see no room for debate about the conclusion, assuming the >premises are true." And my response is, Ah, but how do you know for a fact >that your premises are true? The truth, or lack thereof, of premises, is irrelevant to whether or not logic has been correctly used based on those premises. I can't think of any disagreement that cannot be categorized into errors of logic and different premises. It is usually clear, given these two possibilities, why people disagree. It is as easy to clarify errors of logic as it is to accept that no two individuals' premises will be identical. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:28:24 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: ANNOUNCING JOHNSON'S REJOINDER TO CALDWELL'S HOUSE OF CARDS Message-ID: <199701250328.UAA23965@mailhost.azstarnet.com> TO: theos-roots; theos-l and theos-talk ANNOUNCING JOHNSON'S REJOINDER TO CALDWELL'S HOUSE OF CARDS The below announcement has been copied from alt.religion.eckankar. More food for thought!! Daniel H. Caldwell > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 03:01:09 -0600 > From: dlane@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Theosophy and Its Discontents--an exchange of views now online As many on this newsgroup are aware, there has been a heated debate in Theosophical circles about K. Paul Johnson's thesis concerning the historical identity of Madame's "Masters." Daniel Caldwell, an expert on the early history of Theosophy, has written an analysis of Johnson's work entitled House of Cards. K. Paul Johnson, a noted scholar and author of two widely discussed books on Theosophy (SUNY Press), has written a rejoinder to Daniel Caldwell. Johnson's essay and a hyperlink to Caldwell's essay are now online via the Neural Surfer, Critical Mind, point 5. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point5.html Quite interesting reading and some of their issues touch upon discussions in this group...... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:28:24 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: ANNOUNCING JOHNSON'S REJOINDER TO CALDWELL'S HOUSE OF CARDS Message-ID: <199701250328.UAA23965@mailhost.azstarnet.com> TO: theos-roots; theos-l and theos-talk ANNOUNCING JOHNSON'S REJOINDER TO CALDWELL'S HOUSE OF CARDS The below announcement has been copied from alt.religion.eckankar. More food for thought!! Daniel H. Caldwell > Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 03:01:09 -0600 > From: dlane@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Theosophy and Its Discontents--an exchange of views now online As many on this newsgroup are aware, there has been a heated debate in Theosophical circles about K. Paul Johnson's thesis concerning the historical identity of Madame's "Masters." Daniel Caldwell, an expert on the early history of Theosophy, has written an analysis of Johnson's work entitled House of Cards. K. Paul Johnson, a noted scholar and author of two widely discussed books on Theosophy (SUNY Press), has written a rejoinder to Daniel Caldwell. Johnson's essay and a hyperlink to Caldwell's essay are now online via the Neural Surfer, Critical Mind, point 5. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dlane/point5.html Quite interesting reading and some of their issues touch upon discussions in this group...... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:27:51 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: the dry well Message-ID: <199701250341.WAA29337@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >For instance, her (hpb's) >writings are full of hints concerning medicine that have not been >followed up. Just as examples, I would include in this category Campbell's books on music therapy, like his technique of toning ... also Assagioli who substituted "synthesis" for Freud's "analysis". He wasn't published by the tph, but he was a Theosophist. liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:36:33 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: truth/consequences Message-ID: <199701250350.WAA02052@ultra1.dreamscape.com> Case anyone is interested in the truth ... Murray already has a chick ... for quite a while now. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:53:02 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: TS Membership Drop - A View - Part I Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125035302.006fb760@mail.eden.com> Hi In looking at the historical fact that the membership of TS, which fell dramatically after Krishnamurti disbanded all organizations set up for his work and severed all relationships with TS, has never recovered to this day. The following excerpt from Ernest Wood's (very rare book) "Is This Theosophy?", may be of interest to some of the students of this subject. BTW, Wood gave much of his prime of life to Theosophical work and was at one time one of the instructors of Krishnamurti. MK Ramadoss ============================= THE NEW KRISHNAMURTI Early in 1928, when I was in New York, writing my book on India, Krishnamurti came there and gave a lecture in the Chemical Society's Hall. I was asked to preside. I found that, as he expressed it himself, the picture had come out of its frame. Krishnamurti was administering truth from his own point of view to the people who had built up various organizations for his use. He declined the disciples announced for him, rejected all the modes of organized access to the forces of inner planes, said that the system of master and pupil was injurious, declared that ceremonies were hindrances, not helps, and reverted uncompromisingly to the position that in order to have spirituality a man must lean upon no thing or person outside himself. He cast off his connection with the Theosophical Society because, he said, it was addicted to these things. A year later he closed down his own Order of the Star, because its members were inclined to lean upon him, and he was determined that no cult, dogma or system should be built round his personality. Some persons, including Dr. Besant, not realizing at first the completeness with which Krishnamurti was rejecting all material and mental props to spirituality, said that of course it was quite understandable that he should not want the ceremonials himself, but they would be useful and indeed necessary to carry on the life-giving power which he brought to us after he had gone, just as Christ was present in the transubstantiation of bread and wine into His Body and Blood on the altars of the Catholic Church. This idea also Krishnamurti severely rejected, but some of the arhats continued in the belief none the less, now saying: " Krishnamurti does not know everything about the Lord. We too have our direct connections with him. Krishnamurti is only authoritative in connection with a special and limited mission." Dr. Besant speculated that Krishnamurti might really be speaking for the future, and said that his utterances were probably intended for the people of the coming sixth race, hundreds of years hence, more than for the world to-day. She said that her policy was to take as much as she could understand from Krishnamurti and leave the rest for the future to deal with. On the other hand Bishop Leadbeater at the same time wrote that the realization claimed by Krishnamurti had already been attained by " ourselves " and he was now really preaching to the horse-racing and foxhunting outer world, rather than to the theosophically inclined! These views well illustrate the difference in character between Bishop Leadbeater and Dr. Besant, the former always sure of himself, the latter modest and seeking, and therefore yielding. It became very clear to me that the movement was going to be shivered from top to bottom if something was not done to relieve the Society from all connection with other movements which were advocating material means to spiritual goals. In the middle of 1928 Dr. Besant was re-elected President of the Society for a fourth seven-year term. She appointed Mr. A. P. Warrington, of America, Vice-President, and continued Mr. Albert Schwarz in, the post of Hon. Treasurer, which he had occupied for over twenty years. On my return from Australia at the end of the year she completed her trio of officers by appointing me Hon. Secretary of the Society, fully knowing my views with reference to the undesirable influence of other organizations upon the practical affairs of the Society. At the same time she spoke very seriously to me on that subject. She told me that she was anxious to encourage everybody in their laudable undertakings, but she was afraid of crystallization in the Society. She praised highly the enthusiasm of those who had launched various movements, but was at the same time anxious to prevent any bias from establishing itself in the Society, or even from appearing to do so. She spoke of the difficulty which she felt on account of the pressure upon her of the religious enthusiasts on one side, and finally said on that point: "I wish some of you would push equally hard on the other side. It would make it much easier for me." She told me of her policy of co-operation with others, and that she had scarcely used her own psychic powers for years, but had been relying on her co-workers in that respect. This last was, I confess, a blow to me. I had all along been trying to sift the gold from the sand in connection with the many occult pronouncements made in the Society, and had relied primarily on her testimony to the existence of that gold. But now I was informed by Dr. Besant herself that she had been and was accepting without critical examination or first-hand confirmation many of the statements of those whom I positively knew to be incorrect, at least on some points. The amount of gold in recent statements diminished in my eyes almost to vanishing point. Although positive, recorded evidence of the earlier days as to the abnormal powers of Mme Blavatsky and the inherent reasonableness of the system which she had expounded under the name of theosophy remained untouched by this, the living testimony had now vanished as far as I was concerned. And here also was Krishnamurti, declared to be the World Teacher in person, stating that ceremonies were hindrances to a spiritual life, and even that explanations of life, such as those of reincarnation and karma were soporific, for only the aid of pure action in the present, making the most of the present was consistent with spirituality, liberation, or the clean and self-fructifying operation of life itself. To hold a theory that we must work for the development or accumulation or acquisition of opportunities or powers to be attained at some future time was simply to spoil the living present. -------------------End of Part I ---------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:53:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: TS Membership Drop - A View - Part II Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125035305.006ffba0@mail.eden.com> Hi This is a continuation of Part I of an excerpt from Wood's very rare book "Is This Theosophy?", which may be of some interest to some in looking at the historical fact that after Krishnamurti left TS, its membership never pickup. MK Ramadoss Part II: --------------Continued from Part I -------------- I saw much of Krishnamurti during his visit to New York and on subsequent occasions. I tried to grasp how life appeared and what it meant to him. That was difficult, because it did not mean anything at all. It stood for itself and required no interpretation. He said he had reached liberation; he was free, but he could not describe that freedom. Mind could no more grasp life than teeth could bite the air. Life was knowing itself direct in him, not through the veil of mind, with its clumsy categories of past, present and future. I could see clearly what he was driving at in describing so many things as hindrances, but I was not able to grasp the positive and superior life of which he spoke. After all, his position seemed to be that of the yoga school of India, which I knew well. It was simply that the mind (perception and reason) is not the instrument for knowing the positive element of being that is, life itself, but is concerned with the limited department of production and understanding of forms. Its enhancement could not lead to discovery of fundamental truth any more than could development of abnormal muscularity. On the other hand its suppression could not lead to it, any more than material suicide.. We ought not, therefore, to picture our evolution into some godly or angelic type of being and stultify our present power by waiting or working for that. That would not be different from the way in which stupid devotees set aside their own judgment and waited for orders from above. Nor, on the other hand, should we discredit our present capacity by going backwards, as it were, to the peaceful animal state of mind. In short, the secret of the real is to click with the present, to be fully what we are. Consolation, hope, remorse, and any philosophy which softens the incidence of life upon us in the present stands in the way of life's realization of itself. The mind can help only by removing the obstacles, the errors created by itself. To think of life in its fullness is to make only a picture on canvas. Life is life, and cannot be known mentally by comparison with any object. You cannot put God in a box. Several times I discussed with Krishnamurti the function of the Theosophical Society. He said: You cannot organize truth." I pointed out that the Society was intended to be only a business organization. It existed for the promotion of truth, but did not say what that truth was. " I am afraid you cannot have such a brotherhood," was his reply. " Consider the weakness of human nature. Some creed will get control of the thing, or will be fighting for it and giving trouble all the time' I pointed out that the position is maintained in scientific and learned societies; the Chemical Society does not advocate the use of any particular brand of soap or matches. " People can be impersonal with reference to soap and matches," was the substance of his reply, " but your society proposes to deal with man himself, and you will find that people simply will not face the truth with reference to themselves." " Let us put it to the test of experience," said I. At any rate I am going to try to make the position clear, since there ought to be a society where people may meet to discuss and criticize their various efforts to find the truth. Go ahead," was his conclusion. " I shall watch the effort with great interest, but I think there is little hope." I had still to learn that there are no truth-seekers, because really to want it would be to have it: it is because we do not really want it that we are what we are, embodiments of wanting something less. My first active step was to join with several others in January of 1929 in a renewed effort to establish freedom in the Society, not freedom of individual belief, which was constantly being asserted and accepted, but with regard to the platform of the Society, so that no party could use the organization mainly for its own purposes. We were highly conscious of the acute situation arising in the movement between those whom I may call the Catholics, who wanted to organize a system of living, with stations on the road and all the rest, and the Protestants, so to speak, who wanted private judgment, individual freedom and ethical purity, rather than ceremonials, disciplines and obedience. The position was becoming exacerbated. The big guns began to urge that the Star Office be not allowed on the Adyar estate, although it was full of churches and temples administered by their several sectarian bodies. No one could tell, it was argued, what Krishnamurti's attitude to the Society was going to be. Some of us, therefore, put before Dr. Besant the idea that she might take the lead in a reconstruction, a reformed society, such that membership of it should give not even a flavour of sectarianism, and would thereby be a suitable instrument for the teacher to use, though it would not as a society advocate his views any more than those of any other person. Dr. Besant was willing to make alterations some what on those lines. At least she went the length of putting forward a tentative proposition which was defeated in the Council, that the stated objects of the Society should be replaced by one simple statement that its sole object was to seek for the truth. ------------------------end----------------------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:33:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: A QUESTION OF THE PARANORMAL: YOU BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT JOHNSON WRITES Message-ID: <199701250433.VAA07842@mailhost.azstarnet.com> A QUESTION OF THE PARANORMAL: YOU BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT JOHNSON WRITES K. Paul Johnson writes in his rejoinder to my HOUSE OF CARDS about some of the cases that I quoted in Part II of my critique. Here are Johnson's comments. After his comments I quote the cases Johnson refers to. Please read these accounts and ask yourself which case is more paranormal? Which case shows elements of the paranormal? Compare these cases for yourself. Which case appears "more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits." Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what my reply would be to Johnson's comments? Happy thinking!! Daniel Caldwell Johnson's comments are as follows: ___________________________________________________ PART II In his case for evaluating all claims by Col. Olcott about the Masters by a single standard, Mr. Caldwell cites a letter in which Olcott reported being awakened from sleep in Ceylon in 1881 by Morya, who made him take dictation for an hour. He then goes on to describe a case where Morya "showed himself" to Olcott and HPB, and an "appearance" by Morya before six other people. All of these are equated with the Ooton Liatto case, which is much more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with Olcott. But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to recognize that these "appearances" sound more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits. How can he assume that such appearances, if genuine, were not Ranbir Singh, since he does not know whether or not the maharaja was capable of such phenomena? What does he know of other people who were, who might therefore be more plausible candidates for the Morya in these stories? This section of his argument shows naivete in conflating different categories of evidence. The principle which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. My explanation of HPB's relationship with the Masters relies on ordinary factors and is based on ordinary historical evidence. Mr. Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters, on behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more dubious and ambiguous kind. __________________________________________________ [End of Johnson's comments] Now I quote Olcott's accounts as given in HOUSE OF CARDS: _________________________________________________ CASE A: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO. "...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at the door---I said 'come in' and there entered the [younger] Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars, while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her permission they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had disappeared--- I . . . looked out the window---and saw them turning the corner...." (Olcott's account is given in full in Theosophical History, Jan., 1994.) _________________________________________________ CASE B: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA IN CEYLON "...on the night of that day [Sept. 27th, 1881] I was awakened from sleep by my Chohan (or Guru, the Brother [Morya] whose immediate pupil I am)....He made me rise, sit at my table and write from his dictation for an hour or more. There was an expression of anxiety mingled with sternness on his noble face, as there always is when the matter concerns H.P.B., to whom for many years he has been at once a father and a devoted guardian. . . ." (Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 82-83. _____________________________________________________ CASE C: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA AT BOMBAY In his diary for Jan. 29, 1882, Colonel Olcott pens this brief entry: "M[orya] showed himself very clearly to me & HPB in her garden.... she joining him they talked together...." _____________________________________________________ CASE D: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF SEEING MORYA AT BOMBAY WITH SIX OTHER WITNESSES "We were sitting together in the moonlight about 9 o'clock upon the balcony which projects from the front of the bungalow. Mr. Scott was sitting facing the house, so as to look through the intervening verandah and the library, and into the room at the further side. This latter apartment was brilliantly lighted. The library was in partial darkness, thus rendering objects in the farther room more distinct. Mr. Scott suddenly saw the figure of a man step into the space, opposite the door of the library; he was clad in the white dress of a Rajput, and wore a white turban. Mr. Scott at once recognized him from his resemblance to a portrait [of Morya] in Col. Olcott's possession. Our attention was then drawn to him, and we all saw him most distinctly. He walked towards a table, and afterwards turning his face towards us, walked back out of our sight...when we reached the room he was gone....Upon the table, at the spot where he had been standing, lay a letter addressed to one of our number. The handwriting was identical with that of sundry notes and letters previously received from him...." The statement is signed by: "Ross Scott, Minnie J.B. Scott, H.S. Olcott, H.P. Blavatsky, M. Moorad Ali Beg, Damodar K. Mavalankar, and Bhavani Shankar Ganesh Mullapoorkar." (Quoted from Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 75-76.) >From Olcott's diary for Jan. 5, 1882, "Evening. Moonlight. On balcony, HPB, Self, Scott & wife, Damodar....[etc]...M[orya] appeared in my office. First seen by Scott, then me....Scott clearly saw M's face....M left note for me on table in office by which he stood...." _____________________________________________________ And just for the fun of it, I throw in Olcott's 1879 encounter with the Master Morya at Bombay. I quoted this case in Part I of HOUSE OF CARDS. Does this 1879 event have more paranormal elements to it than the Ooton Liatto account? _________________________________________________ "This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were there). He [Morya] came to scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, he telegraphed to her to come, that is to say, he turned his face and extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in. She came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped to her knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and the servant saw him." (Extract from a letter written by Colonel Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881. Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, p. 80.) _________________________________________________ YOU BE THE JUDGE. . . . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:57:05 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re Truth (yet again) Message-ID: <32E69B41.48A1@worldnet.att.net> >>Nothing physical has Truth > >Has truth or Is Truth? Does a mirror not have an image and if it does, >is not its image part of the object it is reflecting? Is Truth >necessarily connected with what is "real" or is what is both "real" or >maya simply the Whole, which Is Truth? What also of "virtual images" - >to use a physics term in optics? Are we a virtual image? If so, is that >why we can become both self conscious and god-conscious? This is tricky, and has been debated by those better than me for centuries. Basically, it depends on how you want to define Truth (cap T). For example, we could say that the mirror is Truth, but that the reflections/images are passing mavaic illusions (a Buddhist approach). Or we could say that the mirror is ultimate truth while the images are relative truth (a more theosophical approach). We humans tend to identify with the images rather than the mirror. Or, we could say that Truth is all-in-all and contains both mirror and images, both truth (little t) and falsehood. Is a virtual image true or real? Certainly it is a real image, just like our physical world is real maya. In a sense, everything is Truth. In another sense, nothing at all is Truth. Perhaps the Truth lies somewhere in between real and unreal, or between everything and nothing? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:01:48 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Our Shifting Identity Message-ID: <32E69C5C.6920@worldnet.att.net> >Are not all of us part of that "something in existence that is eternal >and changeless"? Indeed are we not ourselves changeless, in Truth? >Should we be "comforted" by our own illusions? Good question. The whole problem of our sense of identity lies at the answer here. But, because our sense of identity shifts like a slippery eel or the notes of a scale at times, we can stop at any point we want to and say--this is the real me! Its only after yet another shift that we learn otherwise. The ultimate question then becomes, where will all of this shifting stop? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:04:24 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: What is Eternal? Message-ID: <32E69CF8.39EB@worldnet.att.net> Ben: >In reference to the manvantaras, perhaps Truth is dynamic in nature, >but how can one know.I wonder whether the seven Truths as described in >the Bible as the "seven seals" would be true only for this manvantara, >or whether such a book is "timeless". As to what is eternal, versus what changes, the only thing that I am aware of that never changes is the divine Monad. Everything else shifts with the wind. And thank the gods! Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:42:02 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth Message-ID: <333f007a.127801302@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom: >>What do you mean by Truth, if not the objective opposite of falsehood? >I mean "that which is." This would, by my definition, include >falsehood. I have basically the same definition, but I don't see how it includes falsehood, except as perception, since it does not exist as reality. Assume that World War 2 ended in 1945, but that I believe it ended in 1965. My perception that it ended in 1965 would exist as an object of perception itself, but there would be no objective truth to World War 2 ending in 1965. The entire purpose of education is to seek objective truth, which would value believing that World War 2 ended in 1945, since it would be objectively true, over believing that it ended in 1965, since it would be objectively false. The objective truth of my believing that it ended in 1965 could also be an object for education. If someone else believed that I believed that it ended in 1945, there would be the same distinction. Their perception would be objectively false, but subjectively true. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:42:07 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Limitations of Logic Message-ID: <334004ce.128910073@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >There is almost no logic to magic (or magick) at all. >Those who apply logic to it find that it won't work. Only by >being illogical do we get results. Why? Possibly because logic >and reason are human, and pertain to the human brain-mind. In order >for magic to work, we must transcend or go beyond the human mind, >and thus transcend logic. I can see from your discourse that you >are terribly wrapped up in logic, seeing it as some kind of litmus >test for Truth. Alas, I see this as self-limiting, because you >will never get beyond the human condition that way. Truth is >both logical and illogical. It must be so, since it is all-in-all. There is a significant difference between what transcends logic and what is illogical. That "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" is a paradoxical truth that transcends logic. To conclude that X is an orange, from the premises that all oranges are fruits and that X is a fruit, is illogical and will be true only by chance. Truth and illogic do not mix, but there is truth that transcends logic. If you understand what I mean by this distinction, I would be surprised if you still said that successful magick can be accomplished both by being illogical and by transcending logic. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:42:11 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <33410778.129591802@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom: >>Logic is not a matter of opinion. It is not subject to whim. It is >>simple to show who is being logical and who isn't. >This sounds like pure fundamentalism. If true, then mental >illness would not exist. It is obvious from modern psychology >that everyone has their own sense of what is logical and what >is not. I wish I had your cock-sureness where such things >exist, but I am afraid that what seems logical to me, may be very >illogical to you. BTW, intuition is seldom logical, yet most >theosophists seem to want to develop it anyway. You are probably including premises in what you mean by logic, whereas I am not. Premises can only be established subjectively, by the intuition. People disagree about their premises all the time. But I would not consider such disagreements to be about logic. If I thought that Green Bay was a better football team than Dallas, and that Dallas was better than New England, assuming such comparisons can be made linearly, it would be a straightforwardly logical conclusion that I would also think that Green Bay was better than New England. If you thought that New England was better than Green Bay, our disagreement would not be about logic, but would have been caused by our having different premises. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:42:13 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Logic vs Intuition Message-ID: <33430af4.130483345@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >Tom: >>Correct intuition will trump correct logic any time. But incorrect >>logic makes correct intuition impossible. > >This sounds good, but I don't know what it means. What is >"correct" logic or "correct" intuition? Do you mean logic >that works out to be "right?" Correct logic is to reason correctly, regardless of the truth of one's premises. The following syllogism is, I hope, a correct use of logic: If something exists, it is a human being. My cat exists. Therefore, my cat is a human being. My premises are questionable, but my use of logic is not. If, with every observation I have ever made of anything, I called what I saw a human being, even my premises would be true, according to my use of language. But according to a standard understanding of the English language, my conclusion is false, not because I was illogical, at least within this syllogism, but because my premises were false. >I often get intuitive feelings >that are terribly illogical. What do you mean by "illogical?" There is a significant difference between non-logical and illogical. A hunch that a plane is about to crash is not illogical. Emotions are not illogical. >My Path lately has been >one of listening to this inner voice rather than ignoring it. >But this is not easy to do. The mind prefers logic. Maybe your >experiences differ? My experiences differ completely. I have never known what I consider to be "illogical intuitive feelings" to be correct. If they mean something different from what are commonly called "hunches," I would not even know what they mean. I frequently get premonitions, such as a feeling that the phone is about to ring, and I do not remember one ever being correct. I have learned to ignore them. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 07:42:17 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <3344134b.132618993@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Kym wrote: >I got the impression from your post that, really, you >are dying to know whether or not I am a lesbian. Come on, admit it, Inquiring minds want to know! >Richard. Well, shocking as it sounds, not all feminists are lesbians, or >man-haters. Like my buddy says, you're all just a bunch of feminazis, with no sense of humor. Megadittos, Rush! >No, in this incarnation, I am in the heterosexual mode. Life _is_ cruel. >Let us >just say. . .my male-bashing is a form a merriment, and I prefer my men on >the side. Sexist. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:04:57 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: The Chakas Today Message-ID: <32E7E089.10B2@worldnet.att.net> Paul: >A new book by Caroline Myss, ...etc Paul, you may have noticed that there is a whole lot of new books out about chakras. I just bought one called "Healing the Spirit: Integrating Spirit Into Our Understanding of the Mentally Ill" by John Nelson, M.D. with a foreword by Ken Wilber (State University of New York Press). The Chakras are "in" nowdays. I recall the days when I had to send off to California for books on the chakras, and pay through the nose. Now you can find material at any bookstore. The idea of the chakras, once occult and terribly secretive, is now in the open, and is being used to account for all sorts of mental and physical things by modern "authorities" of all kinds. My first exposure was good ol' Evans-Wentz, but the teaching has come a long way since those days. I see this as a good, and healthy, sign. I suspect that the TS influence here is minimal (Most theosophists ignore or shun this subject). Probably the biggest factor is the current influx of Tibetan literature and Lamas into the West. For this blessing, I thank China (an ill wind, and so on). Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:24:31 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <32E7E51F.12F8@worldnet.att.net> Chuck, I agree with your assessment. Certainly this is the singlemost problem with QUEST (I have railed against its high fog index for years). However, there is another side to it. There is some advantage to try to get modern writers like Ken Wilber "on our side" so to speak. I agree with you, though, that this adds little to the membership. We need people who can integrate theosophy and science in flowing easy-to-understand English. But what the movement really needs badly are people who know what they writing about-- i.e., those who can write from personal experience rather than from their intellectual machinations. SUNRISE, for example, is good for beginners but lacks "beef" for keeping anyone past a year or two. The "beef" (depth) is deliberately omitted with the rationale that SUNRISE is geared to beginners only. Problem is, Pasadena has no other publication with "beef" in it. So members tend to move on. The answer, for all TSs, is to publish a periodical with real "beef" in it for advanced members, or for those members who would like more indepth knowledge. But either they fear to do this, or they are unable to do it. Personally, I find myself reading and studying the new Tibetan books that are coming out (especially on Dzogchen) moreso than new theosophical books, whose subject matter I find too simplistic to spend my money on. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 17:33:08 -0500 From: Jerry Schueler Subject: Japanese Sexism Message-ID: <32E7E724.1A62@worldnet.att.net> > Around age 12, girls begin a downhill slide in self-esteem and body >image. The reasons why are obvious. Girls begin to become acutely >aware of how little genuine influence they really have. This is all too true. My professor at CMU (a Ph.D. who owns her own company) once told me that she would not be allowed to act as a spokesman with any big US company in Japan simply because she was a woman -- the Japanese refuse to do business with women of any country, no matter their qualifications. Sad but true. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 01:56:07 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <32f55c9c.29574805@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> >Richard Ihle writes--> >>Get a grip on yourself, Murray. You know you're never going to get any >>chicks unless you can first somehow get them thinking that you'll be doing >>~them~ a favor. . . . >Thoa: >I've had a few men approaching me thinking that they're doing me a favor. >Boy, did they get the heave-ho. They were incompetent bunglers. The trick in getting chicks, broads, foxes, babes, etc., besides never exposing any use of language that might be perceived as sexist, is to know that it is really you who are doing them a favor while convincing you that they are doing you a favor without it appearing that they think they're doing you a favor. Is that clear? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 01:56:13 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Logic: Relative or Absolute? Message-ID: <32f65eb8.30114279@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> TAT wrote: >Mary Poppins: >>The Vietnamese Terror wrote: >>>Let's take A=Johnny trips over the curb, and >>>B=Johnny falls >>> >>>Premise: If Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls >>>Premise: Johnny trips over the curb >>>Conclusion: Johnny falls >>> >>>But what if the conclusion is C=Johnny balances himself and does not fall? >>>You have left out the C possibility, which could logically happen. >>If these premises are true, Johnny could not balance himself and not fall. >>C is only possible if one of the premises is false. >Mary, what I was trying to say is that you cannot squeeze life and >astrallife into a cut and dry logic. You can still try. >The problem with a cut and dry logic is that you exclude other possibilities. All possibilities which do not logically follow from my current premises _should_ be excluded. The only alternative is that some of my premises are wrong, which is impossible. >The logic equation above seems self-evident. You witnessed Johnny >tripping over the curb and falling. In the conclusion, you are only repeating >the consequence of what you have just seen. Duh! On of the primary values of logic is that it enables false premises to be corrected. Having the premises of 1) if Johnny trips over the curb, then Johnny falls, and 2) Johnny trips over the curb, then seeing Johnny do a cartwheel after tripping over the curb, and then realizing that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, leads to only three possible conclusions. Either the observation was wrong, one or more of the premises were wrong, or the use of logic was wrong. Since observations and the use of logic are generally far more objective than the truth or falsehood of premises, it is far more likely that an apparently illogical conclusion means that one or more premises were wrong. The inability to logically determine that an illogical conclusion had just been observed will enable the false premises to remain undetected. Someone without the ability to think logically might continue to believe that if Johnny trips over the curb, he will always fall, even after observing the contrary. Probably very few people lack this ability so much that they would continue to believe something this obviously false, but many other more subtle false premises can be detected this way. I used to believe that Jesus had died to pay the penalty of eternal hell that I owed for my sins. But then I understood the Bible to say that only those who believed that he paid this penalty for them actually had this penalty paid for them. This logically breaks down to the necessity of having faith in one's own faith that he died for one's sins in order to have this penalty paid, which I concluded to mean that there is no objective truth to his dying for anyone's sins. Since I still cannot see any flaw in this logic, I conclude that my belief that he died to pay the penalty for my sins was a false premise. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 00:08:58 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: "Leadbeater-Theosophy Model" and Krishnamurti Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125060858.006979c4@mail.eden.com> Hi After HPB passed away, the model advocated in the Theosophical Society for spiritual growth is that of non-meat eating, non-smoking, non-fur wearing, celibacy (?), etc. etc. and could be for convenience called the Leadbeater-Theosophy Model. We all agree that all these are conducive to a healthy life. The ironic fact is that when the Real Founders selected individuals to launch the modern Theosophical Movement, they did *NOT* select ones fitting the Leadbeater-Theosophy spiritual Model. HPB and HSO ate meat and both smoked. (They also several times when travelling in India, just lived on bananas and so they were flexible.) If they were to miraculously reappear today, they would not be allowed to live either at Adyar or Wheaton and eat meat or smoke. I am not advocating that the present restrictions should be lifted at either place. What I am trying to understand is whether in attempting to force serious Theosophists into the Leadbeater-Theosophy spirituality model (even though fully voluntarily) if the priorities got mixed up. This issue has been brought into focus by the publication of the book by Radha Sloss on Krishnamurti. Sex and violence sells. The book focused on the physical relationship K had with her mother Rosalind Rajagopal and this when viewed from the traditional Leadbeater-Theosophy spiritual model shocked many who were brought up in that tradition. The book was very widely reviewed and a review appeared in TSA's Quest Magazine. In a recent book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and The Rajagopals", she addresses this issue head-on in the very first page. As this may be a topic of interest for consideration of some here, I am excerpting it. MK Ramadoss ============================================== This is a personal reply to Lives in the Shadow with J Krishnamurti by Radha Rajagopal Sloss (London, 1991). The publishers of this book claim that it was written "in a spirit of tenderness, fairness, objective inquiry and no little remorse", yet the author rarely misses an opportunity to belittle Krishnamurti; it contains many misstatements of fact, false inferences and snide innuendoes, and it is heavily biased in an attempt to justify the author's parents at Krishnamurti's expense. Radha Sloss (RS in future) has taken such pains to make out that K (as I shall now call him) was a liar, that anything said by K's friends as to what he told them can, RS implies, be dismissed as a lie. The author even goes so far as to write that my mother, K's oldest friend, who had known him from 1911 until her death in 1964, had called him "a congenital liar". I will never believe this without written proof I knew her feelings for him too well. We are supposed to assume that everything Krishnamurti said which the Rajagopals objected to was a lie whereas everything unsubstantiated they choose to say is the truth. RS's main accusation against Krishnamurti is that he had a physical relationship for many years with her mother, Rosalind Rajagopal, while maintaining "a chaste image". The physical relationship is not in dispute and should not come as a shock. It certainly did not surprise or shock me when K told me about it. I knew about his relationship with Rosalind before I wrote the last volume of my biography but did not realize that Rosalind wanted her adultery broadcast to the world. I have always stressed that Krishnamurti was physically a perfectly normal man. As for its being a secret affair, was K supposed to go about saying that Rosalind was his mistress? It was her concern as much as his. And he never "presented" himself as being celibate. According to the tenets of Leadbeater-Theosophy, celibacy was essential for any aspirant to the Path of Discipleship but K broke away entirely from Theosophy and its tenets in 1929 and thereafter often spoke publicly against celibacy. Here are a few quotations from his published talks to prove this point: "So-called holy men have maintained that you cannot come near God if you indulge in sex, therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But by denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty because beauty is associated with woman." And again: "I think we should understand what love and chastity are. The vow of chastity is not chastity at all, for below the words the craving goes on and trying to suppress it in different ways, religious and otherwise, is a form of ugliness which, in its very essence, is unchaste. The chastity of the monk, with his vows and denials, is essentially worldliness which is unchaste. All forms of resistance build a wall of separateness which turns life into a battlefield; and so life becomes not chaste at all." And yet again: "To deny sex is another form of brutality; it is there, it is a fact. When we are intellectual slaves, endlessly repeating what others have said, when we are following, obeying, imitating, then a whole avenue of life is closed; when action is merely a mechanical repetition and not a free movement, then there is no release; when there is this incessant urge to fulfil, to be, then we are emotionally thwarted, there is a blockage. So sex becomes the one issue which is our very own, which is not second-hand. And in the act of sex there is a forgetting of oneself, one's problems and one's fears. In that act there is no self at all." In answer to a question he was asked at a public meeting, "Is it possible for a man and a woman to live together, to have sex and children, without all the turmoil, bitterness and conflict in such a relationship?" K said, "Can't you fall in love and not have a possessive relationship? I love someone and she loves me and we get married-that is all perfectly straightforward and simple, in that there is no conflict at all. (When we say we get married I might just as well say we decide to live together.) Can't one have that without the other? Without the tail, as it were, necessarily following? Can't two people be in love and both be so intelligent and so sensitive that there is freedom and an absence of a centre that makes conflict? Conflict is not in the feeling of being in love. The feeling of being in love is utterly without conflict. There is no loss of energy in being in love. The loss of energy Is in the tail-jealousy, possessiveness, suspicion, doubt, the fear of losing that love, the constant demand for reassurance and security. Surely it must be possible to function in a sexual relationship with someone you love without the nightmare which usually follows. Of course it is." Are these the words of a man pretending to be celibate? People who are disturbed and disillusioned by the fact that K had a physical affair should inquire of themselves whether they have not been projecting on him their own conventional image of what "a holy man" should be. What K had to experience with Rosalind Rajagopal after some years was "the tail". She became jealous, possessive and suspicious, thus ruining what had once been a beautiful relationship. The question of whether Rajagopal was deceived or not and the pregnancies and abortions will be gone into later, as will the most monstrous of the accusations made against K, those to do with the "process". The strangest thing about RS's book is the Rajagopals' lack of interest in K's teaching, their absence of all mystical sense and knowledge of the true nature of the extraordinary being they lived with for so many years, thus trivializing his story to the level of their own triviality. To realize this it is necessary to touch again on those parts of K's early life where RS has often gone badly astray. (A detailed account of K's life up till Mrs Besant's death in 1932, taken from original sources in the Adyar archives and K's own letters, is given in The Years of awakening. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 00:21:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125062101.006ebaf0@mail.eden.com> At 11:59 PM 1/24/97 -0500, Jerry Schueler wrote: >Chuck, I agree with your assessment. Certainly this is the >singlemost problem with QUEST (I have railed against its high >fog index for years). However, there is another side to it. I just received the latest QUEST. It has shrunk in size, may be due to financial reasons and it is likely we see short articles in future. So the fog index, I hope goes down. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:37:36 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Growth of the Internet Message-ID: <199701251350.IAA21890@cliff.cris.com> There's been some discussion in the past on this mailing list about how many people have access to the Internet. The following is taken from an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Thurs, Jan 23, 1997. "Many analysts say nothing can stop the Internet's growth. 'People feel they have to connect,' said Paul Merenbloom, a technology analyst at Piper, Jaffray in MN. 'There is sheer pressure to be online and connected.' Whole constituencies of consumers have yet to discover the Net. Fewer than one in 10 homes go online, mostly because the rest have never tried it or don't have the needed equipment. Only one in three homes have computers. But PCs are being found in more homes. Intel and several computer makers are considering PCs that cost $1000, instead of the typical $2000 to $3000. The lower price would lure a new group of buyers. Meanwhile, WebTV was just introudcuced in 1996. It turns a TV set into an Internet access device. Web TV is expected to be the fist of many products that bring the Net to TVs-an even wider audience." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------- BTW, this is the second time I am posting this message as I received it back with a note telling me that I wasn't subscribed to theos-l. This is the fourth time this has happened to me. -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:08:45 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Shut down of ES by Annie Besant Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125150845.00695d6c@mail.eden.com> The TS Membership was at its highest when Annie Besant was the President and just before Krishnamurti disbanded all organizations set up for him to teach. In a very little known, but one of the boldest actions ever taken by Annie Besant, she shut down the ES in 1928. It was of course re-opened, I believe a year later. Besant was known to be one of the boldest action oriented organizers and the historical fact may be of interest to some. I am excerpting from Emily Lutyen's book "Candles in the Sun" which gives a very good account leading to the shut down. Hope this may interest some here. MKRamadoss =============================================== Dr Rocke, who was travelling with Krishna and Mrs Besant .to India on the China, fell down a companionway and died instantly from cerebral haemorrhage. She was to have attended the T.S. Convention at Adyar before returning to Australia. I have no letter from Krishna about this tragic event, but he must have felt it keenly because Dr Rocke was one of his oldest friends. I certainly was deeply saddened by the news. We had all seemed so invulnerable and now there was Nitya gone and Dr Rocke too. C.W.L. also went to Adyar for the Convention (from Sydney), and in a letter dated December 8th 1927 Krishna told me that C.W.L. and his party had arrived and that he had had a long talk with him for an hour and a half. C.W.L. had asked him what his new consciousness felt like and when Krishna told him there was no Krishna any more- the river and the sea had become one-C.W.L. had replied, "Yes, like the books of old. It is all true." Krishna added that C.W.L. had been very nice and extraordinarily reverential. I stopped keeping a diary after 1927, and I can find very few letters from Krishna for 1928, so I have to rely mostly on the International Star Bulletin' and the Star Review for the events of that year. In March Krishna returned to London and gave his first public lecture in England on the 31st at the Friends' Meeting House. The hall was packed with fifteen hundred people and many hundreds could not gain admittance. He spoke for fifty minutes and the audience were deeply attentive. A correspondent wrote to the Star Review that she was present at the Chapel Royal Savoy on the Sunday after Krishna's lecture and that the Chaplain, the Rev. Hugh Chapman, in the course of his sermon, spoke most beautifully of Krishna, whose speech he had evidently heard. He spoke of him as being full of the spirit of God. At the close of the service he asked- a blessing on all those who were filled with gifts of the Spirit and on "that young Indian." In April Krishna went to Ojai and the first Star camp was held there in May. On May 16th he spoke in the Hollywood Bowl, a magnificent natural amphitheatre, to sixteen thousand people. This was his first public lecture in America and it received a very good press. Two days after the Ojai camp closed Krishna left for London. On the 18th of June he lectured at the Kingsway Hall in Holborn. On the 20th he flew to Paris, where he gave a public lecture at the Salle Pleyel. Every one of the three thousand seats was taken several days beforehand, and "a very cultured, representative and interested audience filled the hall." On the 27th he broadcast in French from the Eiffel Tower radio station on "The Search for Happiness." This talk probably reached two million listeners. I give all these facts to show that Krishna's public mission had now begun in earnest. Further alterations at Castle Eerde made it possible to have a gathering of eighty people there this year before-the camp. Leopold Stokowski, the conductor of the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra, came with his wife for a short visit. The gathering lasted three weeks and the camp afterwards was held between the 2nd and l0th of August. Krishna in his teaching this year declared more positively than ever that the way to happiness-or Liberation, True, or whatever one liked to call it-could not be found in any outward forms or "shelters of comfort,"' as he put it, but only in oneself. In his last talk at the gathering at the Castle he told us, I do not want to have followers.... I abhor the very idea of anyone calling himself my disciple. Be rather the disciple of that understanding which is the fruit of ripe thought and great love; be the disciple of your own understanding.... If my authority or personality can sway your emotions and your thought, so the authority or charm of another may upset your whole understanding." He asked us in his opening camp speech "to doubt everything, put aside everything you have accumulated ... for if you would climb to a great height you must carry very little with you." He declared that "Truth does not give hope; it gives understanding." "The time has come," he said, "when you must no longer compromise with Truth, when you must no longer subject yourselves to authority. . . . All your systems,, your philosophies, your half-truths must go in order to find the Eternal.... I hope you will not listen to anyone, but will listen only to your own intuition, your own understanding, and give a polite refusal to those who would be your interpreters." I contributed an article to the September number of the Star Bulletin on the Ommen Camp of 1928, which gives some idea of the effect of Krishna's teaching this year on a great many people. I wrote: "The time has come for us all when a great and serious decision must be made between a dead past and a living future. How strange it seems that for seventeen years we have been expecting the World Teacher, and now when He speaks of that which is beyond all forms, we are hurt or angry. He is making us do our own work, mentally and emotionally, and that is the last thing we expected of Him. Some people are returning home naked and alone, their foundations shattered, realizing the necessity of reorientating themselves in a world in which every value has changed. Some are feeling a sense of bleak desolation at the prospect; others are feeling a joy and freedom such as they have never known before. Some will begin at once to gather again the broken pieces and rebuild them on the old plan. If there can be tragedy associated with one who has attained ultimate liberation and eternal happiness, the tragic side of this camp has been the way in which the dead past has risen at every moment to confront the new ideas. In every question we stabbed him with the words, 'It has been said,' ' We have been told.' He says to us, 'Accept no authority'; and we say, 'We cannot live without authority, so, as we do not understand you, we will find someone else to tell us what you mean and what we must do about it.' "Krishnaji says, 'There is no God other than as manifest in man.' And we say, 'You are wrong. There is a God: we pray to Him, we know Him, we build altars for His worship and He blesses those altars.' "Krishnaji says: 'No ceremonies are necessary for spiritual attainment. If your desire is for the mountain-top I will show you the shortest way. Come.' And we reply, 'The direct path is for you, the ceremonial path is for us. Besides, the world needs our ceremonies which generate force for its assistance. Your way is too simple and too difficult."' Krishna closed the camp with the words, "There have been many thousand people at these camps and what could they not do in the world if they all understood I They could change the face of the world tomorrow." After the camp Mary and I went with Krishna to St Moritz for a wonderful month of peace. We stayed in a chalet overlooking the Lake of Silvaplana. Jinarajadasa spent some of the time with us and he and Krishna had many talks together. In October Krishna went off to India and I got a letter from him written during the voyage on the S.S. Orford, telling me that he had had a letter from Jinarajadasa enclosing a copy of one he had sent to Mrs Besant and C.W.L. In this letter Jinarajadasa had told them that he had been seeing a great deal of Krishna at St Moritz and that Krishna felt he was not being supported in his teaching- by the leaders of the T.S. Krishna maintained that the Liberal Catholic Church, Masonry, and so on were a waste of time, and that although he (Jinarajadasa) did not follow him entirely he saw the absolute necessity for some action-either the E.S. must be altered or some other change made. Krishna went on to say that he was not going to change his attitude for anybody in this or another world; that they might say he was not the World Teacher but he was going on with his teaching. Life was a strange affair, he added, but fortunately he had a strong sense of the ridiculous. The boat was full of Australians, the scorning variety, who laughed at him to his face, so that there was not much danger of his becoming conceited. Before Krishna arrived in India, Mrs Besant, no doubt prompted by Jinarajadasa's letter, closed the E.S. throughout the world and gave out a statement that as Krishna was the Teacher he should teach and no one else. Krishna wrote to me from Adyar on November 8th that Mrs Besant had done the biggest thing that anyone could do-to build up something great and then put it aside for something greater. He was very glad that she had done it of her own accord before he arrived, as no one could then say that he had put pressure on her. It would give him an immense opportunity and he must be wise and full of patience. He ended his letter by telling me that George and Rukmini had left Adyar two days before he arrived. A fortnight later he was writing again, still from Adyar, to say that he had been speaking every day but that speaking to people who had ceased to think was very exhausting. They were all a bit nervous of him, he said, as he was like a piece of glass which reflected them and they did not like that. He went on to say that George had returned and that they had had a long talk together, the gist of which was that George had told him that he did not believe Krishna was the Teacher but that he did not want to say so in public out of consideration for Mrs Besant. George had finally said, "You go your way and we will go ours. I also have something to teach." There was now a clear-cut division between Krishna's followers and those of George and Wedgwood - which Krishna thought better than the former pretence, but the cleavage had not yet been made public or official. Mrs Besant was still holding the two factions together, although she told Krishna that she would do anything he wanted her to do. She wished she could give up the Presidency of the T.S. and go with him wherever he went, but to her disappointment her Master had told her to stand by her work. However, she removed all functions of a ritualistic and ceremonial nature from the Theosophical Convention at Benares at the end of December as evidence of her recognition of Krishna as the World Teacher, and at his talks she insisted on sitting on the ground with the rest of his audience instead of on the dais beside him, and listened to him with the greatest reverence. She was now eighty-one and the faction against Krishna gave out that her memory was failing and that she was senile. =================== end ===================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:16:08 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Growth of the Internet Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125151608.006e5334@mail.eden.com> At 08:57 AM 1/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >There's been some discussion in the past on this mailing list about how many people >have access to the Internet. The following is >taken from an article in the Chicago Sun-Times, Thurs, Jan 23, 1997. > >"Many analysts say nothing can stop the Internet's growth. > >'People feel they have to connect,' said Paul Merenbloom, a technology >analyst at Piper, Jaffray in MN. 'There is sheer pressure to be online and connected.' > >Whole constituencies of consumers have yet to discover the Net. Fewer than one in 10 >homes > go online, mostly because the rest have never tried it or don't have the needed >equipment. >Only one in three homes have computers. > >But PCs are being found in more homes. Intel and several computer makers are considering >PCs that >cost $1000, instead of the typical $2000 to $3000. The lower price would lure a new >group of buyers. > >Meanwhile, WebTV was just introudcuced in 1996. It turns a TV set into an Internet >access device. Web TV is expected to be the fist of many products that bring the Net to >TVs-an even wider audience." > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- >----------------- > >BTW, this is the second time I am posting this message as I received it back with a note >telling >me that I wasn't subscribed to theos-l. This is the fourth time this has happened to me. > >-Ann E. Bermingham Ann: I have had similar experience of my being deleted from theos-l and had to re-subscribe. I believe there is some bug on the list server which is causing the problem. As I have been mentioning for the past two years, very few really can forsee the power of Internet. It is unstoppable. Many organizations have to deal with this new medium. From an administrative point of view, more light is going to be focused on the actions all over the world. Actions in the past were unknown to most membership due to lack of means of communication/broadcasting, will now be public knowledge immediately when known. With e-publishing, it is going to turn the publishing industry upside down -- it may take some time; but IMHO it is going to happen in our life time. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 10:32:36 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 850 Message-ID: <970125103235_241294231@emout14.mail.aol.com> Ramadoss says: "In a recent book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and The Rajagopals", she addresses this issue head-on in the very first page. As this may be a topic of interest for consideration of some here, I am excerpting it". Whose the publisher, what's date of publication and what's the ISBN number? I would like to order a copy. LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:58:03 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 850 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125155803.006aa594@mail.eden.com> At 10:35 AM 1/25/97 -0500, you wrote: > Ramadoss says: "In a recent book by Mary Lutyens titled "Krishnamurti and >The >Rajagopals", she addresses this issue head-on in the very first page. As >this may be a topic of interest for consideration of some here, I am >excerpting it". > >Whose the publisher, what's date of publication and what's the ISBN number? I >would like to order a copy. > >LunarPitri > > KRISHNAMURTI AND THE RAJAGOPALS BY MARY LUTYENS ISBN 1-888004-08-8 KRISHNAMURTI FOUNDATION OF AMERICA It can be directly ordered from KFA. Your can look up KFA at http://www.rain.org/~kfa MKRamadoss aka ...doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 10:56:08 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <199701251656.LAA25098@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > > >Richard Ihle writes--> > >>Get a grip on yourself, Murray. You know you're never going to get any > >>chicks unless you can first somehow get them thinking that you'll be doing > >>~them~ a favor. . . . > > >Thoa: > >I've had a few men approaching me thinking that they're doing me a favor. > >Boy, did they get the heave-ho. > > They were incompetent bunglers. The trick in getting chicks, broads, > foxes, babes, etc., besides never exposing any use of language that might > be perceived as sexist, is to know that it is really you who are doing them > a favor while convincing you that they are doing you a favor without it > appearing that they think they're doing you a favor. Is that clear? My impression of Tom has been, for a long time now, one of a 17 year-old teen-age boy sitting in the basement of his parent's home hacking away at a PC that he got for Christmas. Down there he can smirk and heh-heh like his heroes Beavis and Butthead while he take potshots at the Theosophists, whose list he has decided to infiltrate. Now come clean, Tombo! Thoa has revealed herself, as had many others on this list. What not be honest for a change and tell us that you are paying for your Internet bill with the money you make at the mall selling fast food? Are you a computer nerd with thick glasses that no women will date? Did you go to the prom and have your lady desert you for the drummer in the band that was playing? We can handle it if we find out you still wear braces. Most of us of here have gained wisdom with age and won't take potshots at you. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 10:41:37 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <199701251656.LAA25090@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > At 11:59 PM 1/24/97 -0500, Jerry Schueler wrote: > >Chuck, I agree with your assessment. Certainly this is the > >singlemost problem with QUEST (I have railed against its high > >fog index for years). However, there is another side to it. > > I just received the latest QUEST. It has shrunk in size, may be due to > financial reasons and it is likely we see short articles in future. So the > fog index, I hope goes down. > The latest QUEST is also the latest American THeosophist, as the two publications have merged. There will 12 issues, with four special issues available to the public, while the other 8 will be for the members. I think what we are asking for in a publication is something that speaks to us in a way that we can understand. With everyone's busy schedules, we need something that is easily readable, yet speaks to our problems and our lives in the 90's, as we tread the path. _AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 11:58:41 -0700 (MST) From: JRC Subject: Chuang-tzu Message-ID: "The greatest Way is not cited as an authority, The greatest discrimmination is unspoken, The greatest goodwill is cruel, The greatest honesty does not make itself awkward, The greatest courage does not spoil for a fight. When the Way is lit it does not guide, When speech discrimminates it fails to get there, Goodwill too constant is at someone's expense, Honesty too clean is not to be trusted, Courage that spoils for a fight is immature." -from the "Inner Chapters" of the Taoist Chuang-tzu ****************************************************************** From the mountains, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 14:14:32 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intrapsychic theorems Message-ID: <970125141431_-2046293387@emout14.mail.aol.com> Number five is silly. Just because I find brocolli unpalatable does not mean that I'm afraid of it. It just tastes yucky to my tummy. On the other hand, I really like the architecture of roller coasters but there is no way on this earth you would get me onto one. THEY do scare the living daylights out of me. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 14:30:39 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <970125143038_-2079837040@emout01.mail.aol.com> Jerry, I think letting Ken Wilber out of his padded cell was one of the greatest mistakes the TS ever made. The man is the very definition of vacuous but he hides it behind so many words that the poor fools who read his junk actually think he's saying something. On top of that, he's a bore! My objection to the TS science-chasing is that science is constantly changing and what was considered ultimate scientific truth in one period becomes something to make jokes about in classrooms twenty years later. This puts the TS in the position of thinking something has been proven only to have it unproven later to the TS great and lasting embarrassment. I never read anything Quest books publish. If they went to half the trouble to find good authors that they do in making pretty covers they might actually come up with something worth the trouble of reading. On the other hand, trying to put a path of devotion into the TS would be a equal disaster. That's how the Krishnamurti debacle started in the first place. What worries me is that there seems to be a rule that anything the TS gets into gets taken to an extreme and it is incapable of finding moderation anywhere, so when it gets intellectual it goes off on one wild ride and then when it tries to correct that it goes flying off into angel-land. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 14:35:59 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: "Leadbeater-Theosophy Model" and Krishnamurti Message-ID: <970125143558_1446083225@emout18.mail.aol.com> Doss, "After HPB passed away, the model advocated in the Theosophical Society for spiritual growth is that of non-meat eating, ... non-fur wearing, celibacy (?), etc. etc. and could be for convenience called the Leadbeater-Theosophy Model. We all agree that all these are conducive to a healthy life." I don't agree at all. They seem rather a recipe for dying of boredom! Aside from the fact that my grandfather did all of the above and died a very very old man. But then, I'm not serious. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:39:22 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125193922.006c5560@mail.eden.com> Here is something I read in another maillist. Looks like it can be use by TS. Simple language can helps to reach more people. ======================== M: My wife was looking over my shoulder and commented: "Why do these people have to use all those big words to communicate. Does it make them feel more important or do they have to talk like that to be in this particular group. In most cases simple words will do. If the group is for everyone why not speak simply." Gayee ====================================== MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 14:38:31 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <970125143830_442427806@emout02.mail.aol.com> Doss, I hate to say anyone should read that thing, but if you look closely they have renamed the American Theosophist the Quest and that is what you got, so now the TS has two magazines, aimed at different audiences, with the same name. The fog index just shot up past London on the Wilber scale. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 14:41:00 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <970125144055_274475686@emout10.mail.aol.com> << >Richard Ihle writes--> >>Get a grip on yourself, Murray. You know you're never going to get any >>chicks unless you can first somehow get them thinking that you'll be doing >>~them~ a favor. . . . >Thoa: >I've had a few men approaching me thinking that they're doing me a favor. >Boy, did they get the heave-ho. Tom writes--> They were incompetent bunglers. The trick in getting chicks, broads, foxes, babes, etc., besides never exposing any use of language that might be perceived as sexist, is to know that it is really you who are doing them a favor while convincing you that they are doing you a favor without it appearing that they think they're doing you a favor. Is that clear? Richard Ihle writes--> I agree that they were incompetent, but only for your reason that they did not get ~Thoa~ thinking that they would be doing her a favor. (Instead, they got her thinking that ~they thought~ they would be doing her a favor.) However, I must disagree with you on the issue of never exposing your sexist language (and, by extension, most other qualities which one would think that the women would find objectionable). The key, in my opinion, is not to worry so much about your negatives, but just make sure you make a strong impression on them one way or another. The reason for this is that it has been my experience that women tend to see men of the semi-descript middle ground as merely consolation prizes. Thus, in this "contrarian" view, a man who really irritated a woman to an extreme degree would probably have a much better chance of winning her than a man who did not move her in any way at all. Once the woman allows the hated one to become a regular feature of her "astral plane," visualizing him and thinking how much she despises him etc., the tide of the battle has perhaps definitely shifted in the man's favor. It may be only a matter of time before so much "inner work" about him gives way to idle curiosity about what it would mean to become intimate etc. with such a man. If she allowed herself to indulge too many fantasies in this regard, she might unwittingly set the "triggering mechanism," and from there it might only a simple matter of the man showing up at the right place at the right moment. However, the major exception to the foregoing, it seems to me, relates to your statement, "[knowing] that it is really you who are doing them a favor." I think that it is unlikely that a man who does not, at the core of himself, actually believe that women are far greater prizes than he could ever be will be very successful. In the first place, such a man may not ~really like and value women~ (compared to how much he likes and values himself) sufficiently to expend the necessary effort and passion in a relationship with them. In the second place, I am convinced that a man's excessive narcissism is the one vice which inclines women not to think about him very much to begin with. The psychological mechanism involved may be analogous to a man in a bar who attempts to seduce a woman by the non-stop showing of pictures of his wife, telling the other woman how perfect the wife is, how much he loves the wife, how true he is to the wife etc. His devotion to his wife might seem admirable to the woman; however, the woman might have difficulty in seeing how this man and his wife can have anything to do with her. Similarly, it is my observation, at least, that women often do not waste much time thinking about men who are obviously married to themselves. Speaking thus without fear or fact about things which I merely think I ~see~: oh yes, I am a theosophist. . . . Godspeed, Richard Ihle From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 14:42:23 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <970125144220_1378971940@emout19.mail.aol.com> Ann, With regard to the Quest, whichever one it may be, I think what some of us really want is writing by people who have not had their heads in the clouds so long that they are suffering from oxygen starvation. Or, as Gerda says every time she reads the Quest, "Where do they find these idiots?" Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:01:24 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Present vs Future Message-ID: <19970125205851.AAA22304@JerrySchueler> E. Wood (posted by Doss): >To hold a theory that we must work for the development or accumulation or acquisition >of opportunities or powers to be attained at some future time was simply to >spoil the living present. This statement is exactly what I have been trying to say here on theos-l since it began. I do not have Wood's book, nor have I ever before seen this quote, but thanks Doss, for showing me that I am not alone in my heretical views. The idea expressed here is that we should all be working for this life and not worrying about any future lives. If this life is lived well, our future life will take care of itself. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:20:58 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re Truth Message-ID: <19970125205851.AAB22304@JerrySchueler> Tom: >I have basically the same definition, but I don't see how it includes >falsehood, except as perception, since it does not exist as reality. There is a lot of debate as to what is Truth. Buddhists (at least the Dzogchen Tibetans) see it as both Nirvana and Samsara and thus they would include what is called maya--the lower four cosmic planes. Christian Scientists, on the other hand, see Truth as only the spiritual, and they would deny any reality to matter (i.e., the four lower planes, though they know not of them). I take the Dzogchen view, and see all seven cosmic planes as Truth, which itself contains both truth and falsehood (note I use T's and t's to distinguish). Of course perception is involved here. Nothing at all is true or false but what we perceive. Perception is everything. I do not believe that "objective truth" exists per se, except in a relative sense. For example, pink elephants seen by a drunk have objective reality for the drunk. Dreams seem real and have objective reality to us while we are dreaming. Perception changes over time because our objective reality itself changes. Our objective reality always tends to express our subjective reality, and vice versa. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:28:41 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Logic Message-ID: <19970125205851.AAC22304@JerrySchueler> Tom: >There is a significant difference between what transcends logic and what is >illogical. Certainly in a philosophical or technical sense. For example, logic exists on the mental plane and can be transcended by our being conscious on the causal plane. However, there may be no difference in any real practical sense, because what we learn when logic is transcended (e.g., by the intuition) often seems very illogical at the time we recieve it. Dreams seem logical to us when we are dreaming, and usually only appear illogical after we wake. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:46:46 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: The Intuition Message-ID: <19970125205851.AAD22304@JerrySchueler> Tom: >I have never known what I consider to be >"illogical intuitive feelings" to be correct. If they mean something >different from what are commonly called "hunches," I would not even know >what they mean. I frequently get premonitions, such as a feeling that the >phone is about to ring, and I do not remember one ever being correct. I >have learned to ignore them. I agree that illogical intuitive feelings are often called hunches. But what happens when a hunch goes against expert opinion? For example, if the weatherman says its gong to rain, and it looks like rain outside, what do I call a hunch that it won't rain. After lugging an umbrella around, I realize that my hunch about the rain was right. Yet it was "illogical" at the time because it went against the weather report and the way the sky looked. I have medical doctors tell me things too. Should I listen to my inner voice or to the doctors? Is it illogical to go against expert medical opinion? Perhaps. My own premonitions almost always come true. My problem is that I often ignore them because they seem to me to be "illogical" at the time--they oppose what my logic and reason tell me. In fact, they usually come *only* when they oppose my logic and reason. Its almost as if my intuition has an agreement with my logic and reason that it will remain silent whenever the logic is OK, but will speak up when it disagrees. If your own "premonitions" are never true, then perhaps they are not intuitive at all, (just stray thoughts that seem intuitive) because it seems to me that our intuition is seldom wrong about anything--the problem is listening to it properly. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 13:35:31 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: House of Cards & The Masters Revealed Message-ID: <199701252135.NAA29446@palrel3.hp.com> Someone posted a URL with summaries of the above. What I've had time to look at so far is interesting just for its own sake, but I have a question for both K. Paul Johnson and Daniel Caldwell: what has been the journalistic drive behind your writings? Could you each give a "significance" for your conclusions or at least for your questions? It's a curiosity thing with me. Sometimes you pick up "vibes" from writings that you can't quite put your finger on - but it's like the effluvia of the author gets in the words themselves. Sometimes the story behind the book is just as interesting as the book itself. Thanks! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 17:28:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Present vs Future Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125232801.006ed140@mail.eden.com> At 04:04 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Jerry wrote: >E. Wood (posted by Doss): >>To hold a theory that we must work for the development or accumulation or >acquisition >of opportunities or powers to be attained at some future time >was simply to >>spoil the living present. > >This statement is exactly what I have been trying to say here on theos-l >since it began. I do not have Wood's book, nor have I ever before seen >this quote, but thanks Doss, for showing me that I am not alone in my >heretical views. The idea expressed here is that we should all be >working for this life and not worrying about any future lives. If this >life >is lived well, our future life will take care of itself. It took me several decades -- too much of wasted time -- before I came to the understanding that the present is all important and also it is the present is what, I hope we know about and that there are a lot of things one can do right now, and do it without delay. I came to this view long before I read Wood's book. So you know at least there are two of us here. ..MKRamadoss > >Jerry S. >Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 17:30:24 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: House of Cards & The Masters Revealed Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125233024.006ea918@mail.eden.com> At 04:40 PM 1/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Someone posted a URL with summaries of the above. What I've had time to look >at so far is interesting just for its own sake, but I have a question for both >K. Paul Johnson and Daniel Caldwell: what has been the journalistic drive >behind your writings? Could you each give a "significance" for your >conclusions or at least for your questions? > >It's a curiosity thing with me. Sometimes you pick up "vibes" from writings >that you can't quite put your finger on - but it's like the effluvia of the >author gets in the words themselves. Sometimes the story behind the book is >just as interesting as the book itself. > >Thanks! Good post. It would help a lot of us if an abstract is provided by each side. That would provide a road map to the discussion. ...MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 17:32:48 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125233248.006e3f4c@mail.eden.com> At 02:47 PM 1/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Ann, > >With regard to the Quest, whichever one it may be, I think what some of us >really want is writing by people who have not had their heads in the clouds >so long that they are suffering from oxygen starvation. > >Or, as Gerda says every time she reads the Quest, "Where do they find these >idiots?" > >Chuck the Heretic > Is it possible that Quest presents a wrong picture of TS to those simple folks who read it and does not attract their interest to find out about Theosophy and TS? ..mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:33:42 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Daniel Caldwell) Subject: A QUESTION OF THE PARANORMAL: YOU BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT JOHNSON WRITES Message-ID: <199701250433.VAA07842@mailhost.azstarnet.com> A QUESTION OF THE PARANORMAL: YOU BE THE JUDGE OF WHAT JOHNSON WRITES K. Paul Johnson writes in his rejoinder to my HOUSE OF CARDS about some of the cases that I quoted in Part II of my critique. Here are Johnson's comments. After his comments I quote the cases Johnson refers to. Please read these accounts and ask yourself which case is more paranormal? Which case shows elements of the paranormal? Compare these cases for yourself. Which case appears "more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits." Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what my reply would be to Johnson's comments? Happy thinking!! Daniel Caldwell Johnson's comments are as follows: ___________________________________________________ PART II In his case for evaluating all claims by Col. Olcott about the Masters by a single standard, Mr. Caldwell cites a letter in which Olcott reported being awakened from sleep in Ceylon in 1881 by Morya, who made him take dictation for an hour. He then goes on to describe a case where Morya "showed himself" to Olcott and HPB, and an "appearance" by Morya before six other people. All of these are equated with the Ooton Liatto case, which is much more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with Olcott. But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to recognize that these "appearances" sound more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits. How can he assume that such appearances, if genuine, were not Ranbir Singh, since he does not know whether or not the maharaja was capable of such phenomena? What does he know of other people who were, who might therefore be more plausible candidates for the Morya in these stories? This section of his argument shows naivete in conflating different categories of evidence. The principle which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. My explanation of HPB's relationship with the Masters relies on ordinary factors and is based on ordinary historical evidence. Mr. Caldwell is defending extraordinary claims about HPB and the Masters, on behalf of which he cites evidence of a far more dubious and ambiguous kind. __________________________________________________ [End of Johnson's comments] Now I quote Olcott's accounts as given in HOUSE OF CARDS: _________________________________________________ CASE A: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING OOTON LIATTO. "...I was reading in my room yesterday (Sunday) when there came a tap at the door---I said 'come in' and there entered the [younger] Bro[ther] with another dark skinned gentleman of about fifty....We took cigars and chatted for a while....[Then Olcott relates that a rain shower started in the room. Olcott continues the account:] They sat there and quietly smoked their cigars, while mine became too wet to burn....finally the younger of the two (who gave me his name as Ooton Liatto) said I needn't worry nothing would be damaged....I asked Liatto if he knew Madam B[lavatsky]....the elder Bro[ther]...[said] that with her permission they would call upon her. I ran downstairs---rushed into Madams parlour---and---there sat these same two identical men smoking with her and chatting....I said nothing but rushed up stairs again tore open my door and---the men were not there---I ran down again, they had disappeared--- I . . . looked out the window---and saw them turning the corner...." (Olcott's account is given in full in Theosophical History, Jan., 1994.) _________________________________________________ CASE B: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA IN CEYLON "...on the night of that day [Sept. 27th, 1881] I was awakened from sleep by my Chohan (or Guru, the Brother [Morya] whose immediate pupil I am)....He made me rise, sit at my table and write from his dictation for an hour or more. There was an expression of anxiety mingled with sternness on his noble face, as there always is when the matter concerns H.P.B., to whom for many years he has been at once a father and a devoted guardian. . . ." (Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 82-83. _____________________________________________________ CASE C: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MORYA AT BOMBAY In his diary for Jan. 29, 1882, Colonel Olcott pens this brief entry: "M[orya] showed himself very clearly to me & HPB in her garden.... she joining him they talked together...." _____________________________________________________ CASE D: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF SEEING MORYA AT BOMBAY WITH SIX OTHER WITNESSES "We were sitting together in the moonlight about 9 o'clock upon the balcony which projects from the front of the bungalow. Mr. Scott was sitting facing the house, so as to look through the intervening verandah and the library, and into the room at the further side. This latter apartment was brilliantly lighted. The library was in partial darkness, thus rendering objects in the farther room more distinct. Mr. Scott suddenly saw the figure of a man step into the space, opposite the door of the library; he was clad in the white dress of a Rajput, and wore a white turban. Mr. Scott at once recognized him from his resemblance to a portrait [of Morya] in Col. Olcott's possession. Our attention was then drawn to him, and we all saw him most distinctly. He walked towards a table, and afterwards turning his face towards us, walked back out of our sight...when we reached the room he was gone....Upon the table, at the spot where he had been standing, lay a letter addressed to one of our number. The handwriting was identical with that of sundry notes and letters previously received from him...." The statement is signed by: "Ross Scott, Minnie J.B. Scott, H.S. Olcott, H.P. Blavatsky, M. Moorad Ali Beg, Damodar K. Mavalankar, and Bhavani Shankar Ganesh Mullapoorkar." (Quoted from Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, pp. 75-76.) >From Olcott's diary for Jan. 5, 1882, "Evening. Moonlight. On balcony, HPB, Self, Scott & wife, Damodar....[etc]...M[orya] appeared in my office. First seen by Scott, then me....Scott clearly saw M's face....M left note for me on table in office by which he stood...." _____________________________________________________ And just for the fun of it, I throw in Olcott's 1879 encounter with the Master Morya at Bombay. I quoted this case in Part I of HOUSE OF CARDS. Does this 1879 event have more paranormal elements to it than the Ooton Liatto account? _________________________________________________ "This same Brother once visited me in the flesh at Bombay, coming in full day light, and on horseback. He had me called by a servant into the front room of H.P.B.'s bungalow (she being at the time in the other bungalow talking with those who were there). He [Morya] came to scold me roundly for something I had done in T.S. matters, and as H.P.B. was also to blame, he telegraphed to her to come, that is to say, he turned his face and extended his finger in the direction of the place she was in. She came over at once with a rush, and seeing him dropped to her knees and paid him reverence. My voice and his had been heard by those in the other bungalow, but only H.P.B. and I, and the servant saw him." (Extract from a letter written by Colonel Olcott to A.O. Hume on Sept. 30, 1881. Quoted in Hints On Esoteric Theosophy, No. 1, 1882, p. 80.) _________________________________________________ YOU BE THE JUDGE. . . . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 17:34:33 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970125233433.006e1874@mail.eden.com> At 02:46 PM 1/25/97 -0500, you wrote: >Doss, > >I hate to say anyone should read that thing, but if you look closely they >have renamed the American Theosophist the Quest and that is what you got, so >now the TS has two magazines, aimed at different audiences, with the same >name. The fog index just shot up past London on the Wilber scale. > >Chuck the Heretic > How do the editor or whoever else find authors like Wilbur? Even I could not understand. I am not an illiterate or high school dropout. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 18:35:28 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: us chicks Message-ID: <199701252349.SAA04642@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >doing you a favor. Is that clear? > It's not at all clear. I'm not particularly attracted to a guy because he seems to be or is doing me a favor. That sets me a wondering for why he wants to do me a favor, especially since I'm not pretty anymore. I prefer men who can talk about something not quite as inane as the weather, such as politics, or foreign affairs, or Picasso, or the latest budding company to buy shares of. He also has to demonstrate that he has a bit of insight & compassion. The only favor I might look upon favorably is if he comes with a pair of concert tickets, but without strings attached. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:05:20 EST From: chadsdad2@juno.com (CHARLES DAVIS) Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 849 Message-ID: <19970124.180344.14023.4.chadsdad2@juno.com> To whom It May Concern: I sent the message referred to below because I ned to terminate my subscription to the THEOS_L digest and am not sure how to do it. CHADSDAD2@JUNO.COM On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 18:55:07 -0500 (EST) theos-l@vnet.net writes: > >We are sorry, but this system sensed the following request which may >have been >inadvertedly sent to this list: > >HELP > >If your posting was intentional, please accept our apologies and >resend your >mail message, making sure you do not include anything that may look >like a >request in the first line of the body of the actual message. If this >was >indeed a request please resend it to listproc@vnet.net >Your entire message >is copied below. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >HELP > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 19:32:35 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: ML TO AP SINNETT No. 6 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126013235.006ef000@mail.eden.com> One of the readers/writers here was looking for this letter. I am posting it. MKR ==================== THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO AP SINNETT LETTER No. 6 [Received at Allahabad about December 10th, 1880] No-you do not " write too much." I am only sorry to have, so little time at my disposal; hence-to find myself unable to answer you as speedily as I otherwise would. Of course I have, to read every word you write: otherwise I would make a fine mess of it. And whether it be through my physical or spiritual eyes the time required for it is practically the same. As much may be said of my replies. For, whether I "precipitate" or dictate them or write my answers myself, the difference in time saved is very minute. I have to think it over to photograph every word and sentence carefully in my brain before it can be repeated by "precipitation." As the fixing on chemically pre-pared surfaces of the images formed by the camera requires a previous arrangement within the focus of the object to be represented, for otherwise - as often found in bad photographs -the: 'legs of the sitter might appear out of all proportion with the head, and so on, so we have to first arrange our sentences and impress every letter to appear on paper in our minds before it becomes fit to be read. For the present, it is all I can tell you. When science will have learned more about the mystery of the lithophy (or lithobiblion) and how the impress of leaves comes originally to take place on stones, then will I be able to make you better understand the process. But you must know and remember one thing: we but follow and servilely copy nature in her works. No; we need argue no longer upon the unfortunate question of a "Day with Mad. B." It is the more useless, since you say, you have no right to crush and grind your uncivil and often blackguardly opponents in the "Pioneer" - even in your own defence - your proprietors objecting to the mention of occultism altogether. As they are Christians it is no matter of great wonder. Let us be charitable and hope they will get their own reward; die and become angels of light and Truth winged paupers of the Christian heaven. Unless you join several, and organize somehow or other, I am afraid I will prove but of little help for you practically. My dear friend, I have my "proprietors" also. For reasons best known to themselves they have set their foot upon the idea of teaching isolated individuals. I will correspond with you and give you proof from time to time of my existence and presence. To teach or instruct you - is altogether another question. Hence to sit with your lady is more than useless. Your magnetisms are too similar and - you will get nothing. I will translate my Essay and send it to you as soon as I can. Your idea of corresponding with your friends and fellows is the next best thing to do. But do not fail to write to Lord Lindsay. I am a little " too hard " upon Hume, you say. Am I? His is a highly intellectual and, I confess, a spiritual nature too. Yet he is every bit of him " Sir Oracle." It may be that it is the very exuberance of that great intellect which seeks issue through every chink, and never loses an opportunity to relieve the fulness of the brain, which overflows with thought. Finding in his quiet daily life too meagre a field with but "Moggy" and Davison to sow upon - his intellect bursts the dam and pounces upon every imagined event, every possible though improbable fact his imagination can suggest, to interpret, it in his own conjectural way. Nor do I wonder that such a skilled workman in intellectual mosaic as he, finding suddenly the most fertile of quarries, the most precious of colour-stores in this idea of our Fraternity and the T.S.- should pick out ingredients from it to daub our faces with. Placing us before a mirror which reflects us as he finds us in his own fertile imagination he says: "Now, you mouldy relics of a mouldy Past, look at yourselves how you really are!" A very, very excellent man our friend Mr. Hume, but utterly unfit for moulding into an adept. As little, and far less than yourself does, he seem to realize our real object in the formation of an A.I. Branch. The truths and mysteries of occultism constitute, indeed, a body of the highest spiritual importance, at once profound and practical for the world at large. Yet it is not as a mere addition to the tangled mass of theory or speculation in the world of science that they are being given to you, but for their practical bearing on the interests of mankind. The terms "unscientific," "impossible," "hallucination," "impostor," have hitherto been used in a very loose, careless way, as implying in the' occult phenomena something either mysterious and abnormal, or a premeditated imposture. And this is why our chiefs have determined to shed upon a few recipient minds more light upon the subject, and, to prove to them that such manifestations are as reducible to law as the simplest phenomena of the physical universe. The wiseacres say: "The age of miracles is past," but we answer, "it never existed!" While not unparalleled, or without their counterpart in universal history, these phenomena must and WILL come with an overpowering influence upon the world of sceptics and bigots. They have to prove both destructive and constructive-destructive in the pernicious errors of the past, in the old creeds and superstitions which suffocate in their poisonous embrace like the Mexican weed nigh all mankind; but constructive of new institutions of a genuine, practical Brotherhood of Humanity where all will become co-workers of nature, will work for the good of mankind with and through the higher planetary Spirits - the only "Spirits" we believe in. Phenomenal elements, previously unthought of - undreamt of - will soon begin manifesting themselves day by day with constantly augmented force, and disclose at last the secrets of their mysterious workings. Plato was right: ideas rule the world; and, as men's minds will receive new ideas, laying aside the old and effete, the world will advance; might revolutions will spring from them; creeds and even powers will crumble before their onward march crushed by irresistible force. It will be just as impossible to resist their influx, when the time comes, as to stay the progress of tide. But all this will come gradually on, and before it comes we have a duty set before us; that of sweeping away as much as possible the dross left to us by our pious forefathers. New ideas have to be planted on clean places, for these ideas touch upon the most momentous subjects. It, is not physical phenomena but these universal ideas that we study, as to comprehend the former, we have to first understand the latter. They touch man's true position in the universe, in relation to his previous and future births; his origin and ultimate destiny; the relation of the mortal to the immortal; of the temporary to the eternal; of the finite to the infinite; ideas larger, grander, more comprehensive, recognising the universal reign of Immutable Law, unchanging and unchangeable in regard to which there is only an ETERNAL NOW, while to uninitiated mortals time is past or future, as related to their finite existence on this material speck of dirt. This is what we study and what many have solved. And now it is your province to decide which will you have: the highest philosophy or simple exhibitions of occult powers. Of course this is by far not the last word between us and - you will have time to think it over. The Chiefs want a "Brotherhood of Humanity," a real Universal Fraternity started; an institution which would make itself known throughout the world and arrest the attention of the highest minds. I will send you my Essay. Will you be my co-worker and patiently wait for minor phenomena? I think I foresee the answer. At all events the holy lamp of spiritual light burning in you (however dimly) there is hope for you, and - for me, also. Yes; put yourself in search after natives if there are no English people to be had. But think you the spirit and power of persecution gone from this enlightened age? Time will prove. Meanwhile, being human I have to rest. I took no sleep for over 60 hours. Ever yours truly, KOOT' HOOMI. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:41:43 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: The Chakas Today Message-ID: In message <32E7E089.10B2@worldnet.att.net>, Jerry Schueler writes >Paul: >>A new book by Caroline Myss, ...etc > >Paul, you may have noticed that there is a whole lot of >new books out about chakras. As he is in the theos limelight at the moment, may I commend the excellent work covering not only the chakras, but the yoga from which they are derived, in the book called simply, "Yoga" by Ernest Wood, authur of "Is This Theosophy?" It was published in the UK by Pelican Books (a branch of Penguin Books) many years ago, and may still be around in reasonable quantities. 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, 26 Jan 1997 01:50:51 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Present vs Future Message-ID: In message <2.2.32.19970125232801.006ed140@mail.eden.com>, M K Ramadoss writes >It took me several decades -- too much of wasted time -- before I came to >the understanding that the present is all important and also it is the >present is what, I hope we know about and that there are a lot of things one >can do right now, and do it without delay. I came to this view long before >I read Wood's book. So you know at least there are two of us here. > >..MKRamadoss Make that three. 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, 25 Jan 1997 19:05:51 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970125190432.0069fa8c@mail.deltanet.com> MKR: >Here is something I read in another maillist. Looks like it can be use by TS. >Simple language can helps to reach more people. > >"Why do these people have to use all those big > words to communicate. Does it make them feel > more important or do they have to talk like > that to be in this particular group. In most cases > simple words will do. If the group is for > everyone why not speak simply." Gayee It depends upon *what* you want to talk about. If we keep things simple enough, things will sound like READER'S DIGEST and be understood and helpful for the hundreds of millions. But we won't be talking about anything particularly profound. On the other hand, we have access to mind-stretching doctrines that can challenge the most agile of minds. Some may leave new readers thinking "huh?" or "baloney!" but with further study can reveal their inner beauty. A jargon or language is needed to refer to the vast ideas we have access to, some words to use to talk about things that would otherwise remain inarticulate. Judge compared Theosophy to the ocean, offering a shoreline for casual swimmers but also containing depths to challenge the most advanced students. I agree that we want to keep our language clear, lucid, and not unnecessarily buried in arcane terminology. On the other hand, I wouldn't rope off the depths of the ocean and say that there should only be wading in the shallow waters. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 22:30:19 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Eldon B. Tucker wrote: > MKR: > > >Here is something I read in another maillist. Looks like it can be use by TS. > >Simple language can helps to reach more people. > > > >"Why do these people have to use all those big > > words to communicate. Does it make them feel > > more important or do they have to talk like > > that to be in this particular group. In most cases > > simple words will do. If the group is for > > everyone why not speak simply." Gayee > > It depends upon *what* you want to talk about. If we keep things > simple enough, things will sound like READER'S DIGEST and be > understood and helpful for the hundreds of millions. But we > won't be talking about anything particularly profound. On the > other hand, we have access to mind-stretching doctrines that can > challenge the most agile of minds. Some may leave new readers > thinking "huh?" or "baloney!" but with further study can reveal > their inner beauty. A jargon or language is needed to refer to > the vast ideas we have access to, some words to use to talk about > things that would otherwise remain inarticulate. Judge compared > Theosophy to the ocean, offering a shoreline for casual swimmers > but also containing depths to challenge the most advanced students. > > I agree that we want to keep our language clear, lucid, and not > unnecessarily buried in arcane terminology. On the other hand, > I wouldn't rope off the depths of the ocean and say that there > should only be wading in the shallow waters. > > -- Eldon > I see your point. Should we set up multiple theos-ls catering to different fog levels. Just an idea. There is yet another problem which needs to be addressed. I would preface it to say I do not have a solution. The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the less intelligent, less educated person. It would be a very valuable statistical information to find out the distribution of TS members by various categories such as age, sex, ethnic background, religious background, education, profession, etc. I know of no such study so far. If this kind of information is available, then TS can think of how to reach the various under represented segments of the population. May be such an effort may be the salvation of TS in the 21st century. Any one has any ideas? MKRamadoss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 00:38:45 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: TS - How it really works? - A view from Wood Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126063845.00687f70@mail.eden.com> Hi, here is an excerpt from Wood's rare book - "Is This Theosophy?". Does it look familiary to what you may have seen in your National Section? It appears that this is how it is supposed to really work. Things don't seem to change even after decades. You make up your own mind. MKR ================================== By 1925 prayers of all the materially powerful religions were introduced on the Society's official platform, and the movement definitely degenerated into a brotherhood of creeds. Criticism of other people's ideas became "unbrotherly!" And besides, it "spoiled the work," and the work was largely a conveyance of blessings and forces by those who were admitted to the systems of organized access to these things. On these grounds offices were filled, and invitations were issued to leaders to preside and lecture at the Society's gatherings nearly all over the world. Bishop Leadbeater and his agents were eminent in the theosophical weakness of wanting things both ways at once, though that was quite illogical. The Society must be quite without dogma, and yet its councils must be governed and its platforms occupied by those who were eager to promote certain beliefs, leaderships and objectives, and members who opposed these must be kept in the background. ======================================end================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:30:17 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126073017.00688b1c@mail.eden.com> 1925 was a key year in the history of TS. A lot of things happened, much of it should be of great interest to anyone interested in the history of TS. Here is an excerpt from Wood's book "Is This Theosophy?". There is a certain amount of credibility to his view due to the fact that he had lived at Adyar and had seen all that took place first hand. Enjoy the following account. MKR ===================================== The year 1925 was to be momentous in the history of the Theosophical Society. In August, in Holland, Mrs. Besant made pronouncements of great import. She said that the coming of the Lord was very near at hand and that he had chosen twelve apostles. This followed the Palestine tradition, but this time the apostles were to be prepared for him in advance. Seven of these apostles were already prepared and these were of the rank of arhats, or initiates of the fourth degree. She and Bishop Leadbeater had already pronounced themselves to be arhats. Many others had reached the first degree and some few the second degree on their lists. Such an extensive group of initiates was declared to be possible (it had not existed in the Society before nor, it was thought, in the world, except perhaps in the time of Buddha) on account of the coming of the World Teacher. Not that the standard of the examination, so to speak, had been lowered, but that the Lord would need many helpers, and so a little "cramming" or "forcing" was permissible, though not generally advisable. The seven arhats who were then named as included among the apostles were Mrs. Besant, Bishop Leadbeater, Mr. Jinarajadasa, Bishop Arundale and his wife, Bishop Wedgwood and the Rev. 0. Kollestrom. Three of the four men had been "Mr. Leadbeater's boys" and the fourth a close friend in early manhood. Three of them by now pronounced themselves clairvoyant, and in direct communication with the World Teacher. It was announced that Bishop Arundale only just managed to become an arhat by submitting himself to the stimulating influence connected with his becoming a Bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church, and his wife, an Indian lady, was outside the circle for a little while, but was soon ready to be admitted. At the same time it was announced that the Liberal Catholic Church Co-Masonry and a proposed World University had been officially accepted by the Lord as special means by which he would help the world when he came. Mrs. Besant accepted all these predictions and became the mouthpiece of them. She had always been modest about her own psychic powers. She believed that she could have been superlative in this respect if she had cared to practise the use of them frequently, but she adhered to the principle of the division of labour and its logical complements - a loyal co- operation with others and a willingness to bear the burden if mistakes were made and trouble arose. Her position was that she was on the "ruling line," and therefore her chief part in the work was to decide policy, organize campaigns and take the leading part in carrying them out. In this division of labour it was not her method to distinguish between the workers, but to proceed collectively, so it was not her custom to say through whom she received any statement she might give to the world. While this was going on in Europe Bishop Leadbeater, in Australia, was significantly silent on the subject of the pronouncements. He would not make any statements openly about them, but said to me: "I hope she will not wreck the Society." Really he did not like the idea of the twelve apostles, and the speculations about a coming Judas also, which Mrs. Besant highly dramatized in her speeches at that time. The fact was, from his point of view, the movement was getting a bit out of hand. Many times he had said to me and others that really the only fault of "our President" was that she would catch at the least hint of the Masters' wishes and act upon it impulsively, getting the principle of the thing right, but not what was exactly intended to be worked out. She used to say that she would rather make mistakes than miss the slightest hint of the Masters' wishes. All through the years Bishop Leadbeater had been writing to her with hints and suggestions, very delicately worded: he had had such and such information; no doubt she also knew about this, etc. Practically she always rose to the suggestion. But it now happened that among the group of initiates who met in Europe during that fateful summer of 1925 there were several who were "bringing through" information and messages on their own account-particularly Bishop Wedgwood, Mr. Kollestrom and Mr. Arundale and his wife. Mrs. Besant felt that the whole situation was quite safely in the Masters' grip, that for the sake of conservation of energy the Masters would use the instruments easiest to work with, and that because of her dedication to the ruling department it was only natural that much information should come through these co-workers. Krishnamurti "remained quiet," to use a familiar Indian expression. There was tremendous enthusiasm in most of the sections of the Theosophical Society. The Society reached its peak of membership, as the statistics showed, in the subsequent two years. There was a great jubilee Convention at Adyar between Christmas and New Year. An electrical expectation filled the air, that something decisive would occur with regard to the coming Teacher. It did occur. Krishnamurti addressed a large audience under the banyan tree. He spoke of the great Teacher. He comes, he said, for those who are in need, etc. Suddenly there was a pause for a second and he spoke in the first person, repeating the "I" three or four times - "I come for those who have need of sympathy.. . ." Afterwards Mrs. Besant said the Lord had now definitely spoken through his disciple, and we might expect Him to make use of the body occasionally, while Krishnamurti would stand aside for the time being in his subtle body. I did not attend very many of the Convention meetings. Bishop Leadbeater and I were engaged in every spare moment on a book on Masonry which he wished to hurry through the press. He used this piece of work as a means of avoiding intimate conversation with Mrs. Besant. He was afraid to talk with her at that time because he could not agree with her but did not want to say so. Besides, he was a little hurt at her taking important information from others in Europe without even consulting him at all. To give an example - there was one young man, admitted to the inner circle, whom Bishop Leadbeater regarded as quite outside the pale. At the door before entering a meeting the Bishop quietly said: "But surely it is not right that So-and-so should be here?" Mrs. Besant walked over to one of the European arhats, spoke with him, came back: " _____ says it is quite all right." Bishop Leadbeater became very quiet! He would never contradict Mrs. Besant. In fact, he would not contradict any lady. This Victorian code of manners of his necessitated avoiding as much as possible any contact with ladies on the level. His secluded life made him an anachronism in this and some other respects. While tremendously loyal to Queen Victoria, King Edward and King George, in the belief that a divine afflatus pervaded the kingly office, he was a determined Jacobite and would often speak of the House of Stuart as rightfully entitled to the British throne. But although thus deferential to Mrs. Besant he nevertheless marked off from his own list more than eighty occultly titled persons as not being really such, although they had been informed by other arhats that they were. After the jubilee Convention of 1925 Bishop Leadbeater and his party of some seventy people returned to Australia, but I stayed at Adyar for some months to attend to literary work. I had compiled a huge volume of theosophical ethics from rough reports of hundreds of lectures (which must have amounted to about two million words) given by Bishop Leadbeater and Dr. Besant during thirty years. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:30:57 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 2 of 3) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126073057.0069fd68@mail.eden.com> ====================Part 2 of 3 ======================= I must now refer to Mrs. Besant as Doctor, as she had been given an honorary doctorate by the Benares Hindu University, which she had done much to promote. Titles of all kinds were highly valued in the Theosophical Society. Notwithstanding allegiance to the teaching in Light on the Path: "That power which the disciple shall covet is that which shall make him appear as nothing in the eyes of men, it was thought wrong to hide one's light under a bushel, as one could not then do so much good - an instance of the peculiar habit of wanting things both ways at once. Bishop Leadbeater would urge his young men to secure a University degree, though he used to say that more good was done by an initiate lecturing than by anyone else, even if the matter and manner of the former was inferior. Dr. Besant was much pleased with her part of the large book entitled Talks on the Path of Occultism. She wrote me from Benares that she had no idea that those old talks of hers had been so good. Though an expert and exacting editor, she had not found it necessary to make more than half a dozen alterations - and those only typographical. One part of the work I had had to write entirely myself, on account of the total absence of notes in that section. As regards Bishop Leadbeater's portion, he gave up editing it about half-way through and did not even trouble to read the remainder. Some amusing incidents occurred in connection with these writings. When we were doing The Masters and the Path, I was reading to Bishop Leadbeater a portion relating to some talks to young disciples. Suddenly he burst out: "Where did you get that drivel?" It was not his habit to dissemble his feelings, whether of pleasure or the reverse. I traced out the offending portions, and discovered that it consisted of some talks by one of his colleagues which had been included among his notes by mistake. However, the material was adapted and put into the book. On another occasion he exploded to me with: " That's just like your little mind!" What had annoyed him was an opinion expressed to me by Mrs. Besant about five minutes earlier - which I had happened to repeat! On another occasion he threw down a bundle of manuscript in front of me and cried out: "Can you do anything with this ranting stuff?" I boiled it down to about half and linked it together a little, and it finally emerged as a book dealing with nirvana - by another of his colleagues, who, however, never knew anything of this portion of the history of his own book. There was an old member at Adyar who had been somewhat opposed to Bishop Leadbeater's outlook. When I returned to Adyar I found him quite converted. He told me with what joy he had read a portion of the "Talks" dealing with Nirvana and liberation. I had supplied the whole thing, both ideas and words, but I did not mention this, as I thought it might devaluate the ideas, since things had now reached the stage in the Society at which it mattered very much who said a thing, not what that thing was. That had come about in the natural sequence of events. There had been a steady increase of literature in the nature of revelations and many people had come to feel that study and thought were not essentially - profitable, being too speculative, and that the important things were facts, which were to be obtained with the aid of Psychical faculties rather than by thought. It was true that Mme Blavatsky's work of thirty years before, especially The Secret Doctrine, was said to be derived from the Masters by psychic means but that dealt with main principles forming a system, while the later literature, due almost entirely to Bishop Leadbeater's researches, was a vast mass of detail relating to objects or facts. While at Adyar in 1926 I had much talk with Dr. Besant about initiations and similar matters. Of occult recognition she gave me "all that is in my power" and said that she was diffident about it because she felt that "it was not good enough." She told me that my participation or non participation in Masonic or other ceremonials would make no difference to this recognition or to further progress - yet some years later when she was ill and helpless, others cut my name out of the list when I ceased to take part in those organized mysticisms! I returned to Sydney trailing some clouds of glory, and resumed my work with Bishop Leadbeater. To compose new chapters for a revised edition of his book, The Other Side of Death, I read dozens of the latest books of spiritualistic research, and found that such works as those of Dr. Geley, the Rev. Drayton Thomas and Dr. Crawford contained investigations of great scientific value in that connection. For another book, Chakras, I placed before Bishop Leadbeater all the information on the subject available in Sanskrit works known to me. This book lagged for a long time, so I tried to make some investigations myself. Concentrating on the chakra between the eyebrows, I became aware of a double rotation like that of two plates revolving in opposite directions. I put this idea before Bishop Leadbeater. For several weeks he told me that he could not find it, but at last he did find such a double rotation in all the chakras, and explained it in his book. There was no doubt in my mind that, whatever they may have been, Bishop Leadbeater's psychic faculties were declining. Shortly afterwards, his principal helper on the astral plane died unexpectedly, but the Bishop did not know it until informed by ordinary means, and actually wrote a letter to him after he was dead. His next important helper also died unexpectedly. He had been ill. One day a friend asked Bishop Leadbeater how he was. Oh, yes, he had seen him; he was going on much the same. Actually he had been dead for two days. During this time I had a little stream of psychic experiences which I need not detail here. I used to tell these to Bishop Leadbeater and ask him about them, and he constantly replied: " I should advise you to take them at their face value." They were very mixed. Some had to do with Masters and initiation; others fell to the level of the following. One morning I awoke with the sound of a cat mewing and in the half awake state I heard a voice saying: You were Nathaniel; look it up in the Bible. Promise that you will remember." Why anybody on the astral plane or anywhere else should wish me to believe that I had been Nathaniel in a former incarnation I am completely at a loss to understand. My wife was convinced that there was some kind of hypnotic influence brooding over the Manor, to which she, however, refused to yield in any degree. My own theory at present with regard to such experiences, whether mine or occurring to others, is that there is a small foundation of fact in them. I had physical confirmation of some of them, as in the experiments on thought-transference and some experiences with Indian yogis which I have already related, and also there is a very convincing sediment of good evidence in such works as those of Dr. Geley, where they record experiments done under test conditions - more convincing on that account than one's own psychic impressions. But there is also a vast superstructure which is completely false, being the product of that state of mind in which dreams originate, dreams which become perfervidly important and take the rank of truer visions in any atmosphere in which they are cultivated or encouraged in connection with a mission, or strong interest in oneself as a person or a character. Even the part which is true (which anyhow is impossible to determine, except by other means than those of the visions themselves) is not important. If one's conduct improves as the result of such knowledge there is no gain in character. Virtue is spoiled by calculation. ======================== end of part 2 of 3 ============= From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:31:39 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 3 of 3) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126073139.006aec94@mail.eden.com> ====================Part 3============================= People say that they get thrills and encouragement and uplift out of psychic experience, but after much observation I have come to the conclusion that these are essentially of the same nature as the thrills and encouragement and feeling of well-being and elevation that others obtain physically from the cocktails preceding dinner. There is something in man which is struggling for birth, but it is surely not to be liberated by stimulating the emotions and the mind, any more than by over-feeding the stomach. As to devotion to the Masters - whatever their true form may be it is not logical that they should want that, either for direct personal purposes or for setting up a new authority to govern this playground of human fancies and desires. Nor does a thing improve by being dressed in a halo of its origin; we can admire and love children without waiting to be guided in the matter by knowledge of their ancestry, and without thinking of the incidents which preceded their material births. Sometimes in the mix-up of occult experiences the error can refute itself, as when in America I had been wanting to set my thought beside that of the Master and find out by feeling whether an action of mine was right, and I thought I saw that Master and heard him say: "You must not do that. You are spoiling our unity. What you do I do." With that somewhat cryptic utterance I may have been talking to myself, from the subconscious to the conscious mind. I accepted the proposition - because it was logically sound. One must not look to God or Masters to do one's work or to make one's decisions. Could one do it to perfection one would not only miss the benefit of effort, but would become an imbecile, as so many religious fanatics do - "0 God, shall I wear my blue dress or my green to this party ? Which will have the best influence on the auras of the people?" The same tendency destroys intellectual brotherhood, for you cannot converse with a man who has his thoughts and ideas ready-made from above, and quite unchangeable. As the new tendency in the theosophical movement increased it offended me more and more. My object all along had been to sift the gold from the ore, but now it seemed that the ore was growing more and the gold less. Theoretically there was freedom of thought and opinion, and the Society was a truth-seeking body, and our truth-seeking was to be done as a brotherhood, without distinction of race, sex, creed, caste or colour. In this spirit we were to study and investigate for the promotion of knowledge of the truth, especially about man, his relation to his environment and his destiny. But in practice there was more than a tendency to give the platform to the believer and to squeeze out the critic or the independent thinker. Instead of the subjection of all doctrines to a co-operative inquisition, "You must respect the faith of your fellow-members." By 1925 prayers of all the materially powerful religions were introduced on the Society's official platform, and the movement definitely degenerated into a brotherhood of creeds. Criticism of other people's ideas became "unbrotherly!" And besides, it "spoiled the work," and the work was largely a conveyance of blessings and forces by those who were admitted to the systems of organized access to these things. On these grounds offices were filled, and invitations were issued to leaders to preside and lecture at the Society's gatherings nearly all over the world. Bishop Leadbeater was one of the worst politicians in this respect especially as he grew older. He detested argument and criticism - such a waste of time; such a dissipation of energy. He said to me: "We must try to get our own people in as General Secretaries in as many countries as possible." He wrote many letters hinting that certain persons were the best. I did not question his earnestness and sincerity, but I thought that he ought to have gone out and started a new society on his own lines, which were quite different from those for which the Theosophical Society was intended. But he won his way, on account of his extraordinary persistence. Bishop Leadbeater and his agents were eminent in the theosophical weakness of wanting things both ways at once, though that was quite illogical. The Society must be quite without dogma, and yet its councils must be governed and its platforms occupied by those who were eager to promote certain beliefs, leaderships and objectives, and members who opposed these must be kept in the background. There was no question but that the Society must be neutral, just as a good scientific society is neutral, though providing a platform for professors and investigators to discuss and publish the results of their researches. The difference between a church and a society is that the latter does not give its support to any one professor or doctrine in particular. I remember a meeting at which someone wanted to pass a resolution against capital punishment, but a delegate, a young Indian lady who was sitting beside me, got up and said she would consider the advocacy of the death penalty more in accordance with brotherhood, for she herself would prefer to be hanged and on the way to a new incarnation rather than to be kept in a degrading prison for a long term of years! The chairman decided that the meeting could not rightly pass the resolution, but there was such a body as " The Theosophical Order of Service," which could do so. That body met immediately afterwards, passed the resolution and sent it to the newspapers. So they had it both ways. But the public could not distinguish between the Theosophical Society and the Theosophical Order of Service. The Society was in the anomalous position of sponsoring the Order and lending to it all its conveniences. In the same way there was the Eastern or Esoteric School of Theosophy, constantly being referred to on the Society's platform as "the heart of the Society." In that heart there were dogmas, beliefs and mediation, but not in the Society! In 1927 Dr. Besant was in America with Krishnamurti. He had now become very active and independent. He wrote charming poetry at that time, full of sympathetic feeling and penetrating thought. Dr. Besant announced that the World Teacher had definitely come, not as she had expected by the occasional stepping out of Krishnamurti and stepping in of the Lord, but by a constant mingling of the consciousness of the Lord and that of his disciple. To this belief she adhered to the end of her life, and she made it the topic of her greatest enthusiasm, as can be seen in all her subsequent annual presidential addresses to the Society. In 1928 she closed the Eastern School, as the Lord had come, and it was his guidance that the people should now seek, not hers. But it was soon strongly represented to her by Bishop Leadbeater and his close adherents that many of its members, released from the discipline of the School, were becoming slack in their personal conduct, and in consequence of this pressure she opened it again a year later for those who felt that they could not discipline themselves and wanted a routine laid down for them. Meantime, the intensive production of disciples and initiates continued. In Australia I was occasionally present at the selections for recommendation. The following was not untypical: Bishop Leadbeater would say: "So-and-so has been an accepted disciple for more than seven years. I think it is about time for her to take a further step." His companions would reply: "Why not? "Within a few days she was an initiate - quite a useless person from the external point of view, but very faithful to the Church and perhaps therefore useful for the radiation of forces. This "force" was the dominating thought in the later part of Bishop Leadbeater's life. The office of Secretary for the Order of the Star fell vacant in Melbourne, and he asked me to suggest a name. I did so, and he said: "But do you not think that the Lord would prefer to have one of his priests in that position? And the priest was put in. He carried the force. ===================== end ================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 09:02:04 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: TS Membership Drop - A View - Part I Message-ID: <32fe19e2.25852263@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> M K Ramadoss wrote: > The following excerpt from Ernest Wood's (very rare book) "Is This >Theosophy?", may be of interest to some of the students of this subject. >the system of master and pupil was injurious Did he mean always, or that the TS had taken it too far? This is the same Krishnamurti who said, in criticizing "beliefs" in the same way that he criticized gurus, that "karma is an invention of man's mind." In avoiding one extreme, he went to the other. >in order to have spirituality a man >must lean upon no thing or person outside himself. How does one go from not having spirituality to having spirituality, but by learning it from the examples and/or teachings of others? >he was determined >that no cult, dogma or system should be built round his personality. All good things cause dependence. Dependence can never entirely be eliminated. Everyone is dependent, and should be dependent, on others to unique degrees. By the same principle of trying to make sure that no one depends on one's teachings, no money should be given away, regardless of the need. >To hold a theory that >we must work for the development or accumulation or acquisition of >opportunities or powers to be attained at some future time was simply to >spoil the living present. That is another way in which Krishnamurti's teachings are imbalanced. He implied that the only relevant time was the present. But this does not address the fact that, since all action is based on dissatisfaction, no action can be taken in the present without having a purpose in it for the future. "What is" and "what should be" should be balanced. Krishnamurti implied that only "what is" matters, which is impossible. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 09:14:33 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <32ff1ff8.27410540@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> >>The fog index just shot up past London on the Wilber scale. >> >>Chuck the Heretic M K Ramadoss wrote: >How do the editor or whoever else find authors like Wilbur? Even I could not >understand. I am not an illiterate or high school dropout. His "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" is one of my favorite books. It is easy to understand, probably more so than what I have heard of his earlier books. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 26 04:33:47 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <199701260933.EAA08863@envirolink.org> M K Ramadoss writes: >"Why do these people have to use all those big > words to communicate. Does it make them feel > more important or do they have to talk like > that to be in this particular group. In most cases > simple words will do. If the group is for > everyone why not speak simply." Gayee >====================================== The synapses from my thalamus to my Frontal lobe must not be firing in an efficient manner, for I fail to comprehend the plethora of symbolism which you just recently attempted to communicate toward me. I implore you to please expand your vocabulary, for I assume you did not enter this data in an attempt to pursue a notion that you might extend the duration of your physical existence. I'm JUST kidding. Actually, I do have a few serious things to say here. Quite often, the above is true in that when you speak to a certain group of people, your vocabulary changes to seem more acceptable. It is a part of being social. However, in my experience, if people have the vocabulary, they use it. It's not a conscious achievement in any way. Also, as far as this Mailing List is concerned, we are talking about books that we have read among other things (lbahblahblah i can't think). Books of which, esp. regarding HPB (not the hpb's), use very BIG words. We end up using the big words we have heard or read elsewhere to describe our current situation. and blahblahblah. See ya! --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun Jan 26 04:46:03 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: us chicks Message-ID: <199701260946.EAA09825@envirolink.org> liesel f. deutsch writes: >It's not at all clear. I'm not particularly attracted to a guy because he >seems to be or is doing me a favor. That sets me a wondering for why he >wants to do me a favor, especially since I'm not pretty anymore. This sounds like paranoia. (I'm not trying to insult you, I experience the same feelings when it comes to women). I know that I am paraniod. It comes along with a history of people who manipulate you until you are of no use to them anymore. I've forgiven everyone who has done such things to me, (and who are still doing them), however, I could never forget. Therefore, I am paranoid. I think perhaps paranoia could be a flip side to innocence. I could really twist this around and say that the most paranoid people in the world are the wisest, but I won't. That would fall under the same lines as Baka-do, my recently invented martial arts technique. I prefer men who can talk about something not quite as inane as the weather, such as politics, or foreign affairs, or Picasso, or the latest budding company to buy shares of. He also has to demonstrate that he has a bit of insight & >compassion. The only favor I might look upon favorably is if he comes with a >pair of concert tickets, but without strings attached. > >Liesel There are always strings attached. For instance, if the guy brings the tickets, then surely he wants you to go with HIM, not someone else. String number one. (shiver) BTW, I think I'm looking for the same situation (relationship, whatever). However, when it comes to getting what I want, I always want more, or I don't want it anymore. I think it is a male thing. I wish I could get rid of it. Cheers, beautiful. :) --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:19:42 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: us chicks Message-ID: <33052f09.31268088@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> John Straughn wrote: >liesel f. deutsch writes: >>I prefer men who can talk about something not quite as inane as the >>weather, such as politics, Collectivism is good in that it provides security and bad in that it encourages laziness. Individualism is good in that it provides freedom and bad in that it encourages selfishness. >>or foreign affairs, Get out of Bosnia. >>or Picasso, Didn't he paint something? >>or the latest budding company to buy shares of. Keating Savings and Loan might be at an all-time low. >>He also has to demonstrate that he has a bit of insight Some things are good. Others are bad. >>& compassion. I feel your pain. >>The only favor I might look upon favorably is if he comes with a >>pair of concert tickets, but without strings attached. >> >>Liesel >There are always strings attached. For instance, if the guy brings the >tickets, then surely he wants you to go with HIM, not someone else. String >number one. (shiver) Objectivism promotes selfishness as a virtue, and it is not nearly as anti-theosophical as it sounds. It is a fantasy to believe that pure altruism, totally removing self-interest from one's motives, is possible. Brotherhood and close relationships involve connecting the interests of others with self-interest, not with trying to deny all self-interest. Relationships should be partnerships, not charities. Only relationships between equals are stable. >when it comes to getting what I want, I always want more, or I don't want it >anymore. I think it is a male thing. I wish I could get rid of it. Always wanting more keeps evolution going. It is only wrong to be selfish and greedy if one is unfair to others. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:25:51 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: TS Membership Drop - A View - Part I Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126182551.006f36c8@mail.eden.com> At 04:05 AM 1/26/97 -0500, Tom Robertson wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: > >> The following excerpt from Ernest Wood's (very rare book) "Is This >>Theosophy?", may be of interest to some of the students of this subject. > >>the system of master and pupil was injurious > >Did he mean always, or that the TS had taken it too far? This is the same >Krishnamurti who said, in criticizing "beliefs" in the same way that he >criticized gurus, that "karma is an invention of man's mind." In avoiding >one extreme, he went to the other. > <<<<<<<<<<<<<< rest clipped >>>>>>>>>> Dear Tom: 1. Glad you read the post. What was in it was Wood's summary of K's position. 2. I have just posted the statement K made when he disbanded the Order of the Star in which he made the famous "Truth is a pathless land" statement. He stuck to his statement till he died in 1986. This statement shook the TS membership to its roots and is still shaking. 3. For anyone interested in K's philosophy/teaching/thinking, there is a mailing list listening-l where intense discussion is going on all the various issues relating to K's stand. It is unmoderated just like theos-xxxx and can be subscribed to by sending a msg to listserv@zrz.tu-berlin.de with a msg in the body subscribe LISTENING-L your name ..MKR > >>in order to have spirituality a man >>must lean upon no thing or person outside himself. > >How does one go from not having spirituality to having spirituality, but by >learning it from the examples and/or teachings of others? > > >>he was determined >>that no cult, dogma or system should be built round his personality. > >All good things cause dependence. Dependence can never entirely be >eliminated. Everyone is dependent, and should be dependent, on others to >unique degrees. By the same principle of trying to make sure that no one >depends on one's teachings, no money should be given away, regardless of >the need. > > >>To hold a theory that >>we must work for the development or accumulation or acquisition of >>opportunities or powers to be attained at some future time was simply to >>spoil the living present. > >That is another way in which Krishnamurti's teachings are imbalanced. He >implied that the only relevant time was the present. But this does not >address the fact that, since all action is based on dissatisfaction, >no action can be taken in the present without having a purpose in it for >the future. "What is" and "what should be" should be balanced. >Krishnamurti implied that only "what is" matters, which is impossible. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:31:45 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <970126133142_1511649793@emout02.mail.aol.com> Doss, The impression problem is one that has bothered a lot of us for some time. It presents the society in a totally different way than it really is and people reading the magazine think we are a bunch of new-age hot-airheads and either reject us totally (as they should if we were really like that) or join the TS expecting that and then learning the painful truth, that some of us are actually quite realistic in our view of the world. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:33:39 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <970126133339_1826131205@emout02.mail.aol.com> Doss, And I write books! Even I have to wade through his crap to find out he isn't saying anything. So I just don't bother with anything he writes anymore. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:42:43 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Shut down of ES by Annie Besant Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126184243.00710160@mail.eden.com> At 01:04 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: M K Ramadoss >> >> "Krishnaji says, 'There is no God other than as manifest in man.' And we >> say, 'You are wrong. There is a God: we pray to Him, we know Him, we build >> altars for His worship and He blesses those altars.' >> >> "Krishnaji says: 'No ceremonies are necessary for spiritual attainment. If >> your desire is for the mountain-top I will show you the shortest way. >> Come.' And we reply, 'The direct path is for you, the ceremonial path is for >> us. Besides, the world needs our ceremonies which generate force for its >> assistance. Your way is too simple and too difficult."' >> >Thanks, Doss, for posting these most interesting articles on Krishnamurti. > >I would like to ask what exactly was the "shortest way" that he was >referring to? As he had denounced ceremonials, secret societies and >organizations, what was his vehicle for bringing enlightenment to all? > >-AEB Ann: Glad that you got something out of the post. I think he is referring to the idea of Master and Desciple and how one can shorten the time for one's liberation by taking the hard but short cut. As you can see in K's statement when he dissolved the Order of Star (which I just posted) he says that no organized form of approach is going to help. I don't think he has a vehicle for enlightenment and asks each one of us to discover it ourself. I am not an expert on K, just a novice's view. BTW, I got introduced to K when I went to the Annual Convention at Adyar and K was speaking across the river. Sri Ram who was the International President at that time, one of the nicest persons who was also very low key, scheduled the agenda of the TS Convention program so that it does not conflict with K's lecture schedule. I am very thankful for it. Couple of practical items I picked up from K's books and videos. One is practical application of dealing with everyone as a human being -- no matter what their occupation or achievements or failures are. The second is the need to be pro active and deal with things now. Third is to keep a low profile. Fourth is to speak up or act when needed without any fear distorting our actions. No abstract stuff. Just plain down to earth. All these have helped me a lot in my every day dealings with others. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:43:57 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <970126134355_375881880@emout20.mail.aol.com> Doss, Thanks for posting this stuff. I once wrote that 1925 was the year the TS went berserk and for those lucky enough to have access to them, they should look at the Adyar Theosophist issues for that year. The one incident that always strikes me was at the Star camp at Ommen when Rukmini got up and said that she spoke as an Arhat--and nobody laughed at her! The mass of imbeciles and assorted morons that seemed to make up the bulk of membership at that time must have believed her, otherwise how could they have tolerated such a ridiculous statement? The year 1925 was the point where behavior deserving only of ridicule was treated with reverence. Gad! I wish I had been there! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:45:19 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Annie Besant and inflation Message-ID: <199701261845.KAA20055@palrel1.hp.com> Thanks to M K Ramadoss for reprinting excerpts from Wood's book. It unfortunately illustrates what can happen to anyone who has spiritual potential. St. Paul wrote, "Despise not prophesyings" but "Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good." There are benevolent and malevolent or evil psychic forces. One genius of evil is that it knows a person's weaknesses and how to imitate that person's image of good. The Gnostics may have understood this when they spoke of the Antimimon Pneumatos or Spirit of Imitation. M. Scott Peck's book, "People of the Lie" discusses his clinical definition of evil, which is a bundle of stuff he found in some patients psyche's which deflected any probing into its nature and which was essentially an energy which perpetuated its falsehoods. I have witnessed the "Besantification" of many people I know. A favorite thing of evil to exploit is egotism. No one with an ego is completely exempt from egotism. The ego *is* valuable. However, it must be made a servant of the Self. Perhaps the word "evil" offends some. But all of us have some evil seeking to work through us. It takes courage to face one's own demons. The more they are faced, the less terrible force they have. Was Annie Besant evil? No. Did her naivete and presumption cause some terrible damage? Yes. It turned many people off to theosophy and other organizations. I would say that evil worked through her. For the above reasons I agree with Tom Robertson's recent post and think many people (including Krishnamurti) have over-reacted to things like dependency on others, structure, organizations and the like. - Titus From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:51:46 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <970126135138_1793411493@emout18.mail.aol.com> The problem is not the size of the words, but the number of them. The Quest style seems to favor using as many words as possible to say the simplest thing in the hope that any real meaning will be lost in the process. Maybe it's the fact that I started writing by doing newwriting for radio and it was necessary to compact ideas into as short a time as possible but I have no patience with the constant blather of the Quest. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:55:57 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Shut down of ES by Annie Besant Message-ID: <970126135532_472251051@emout09.mail.aol.com> Ann, According to a lecture Reuben gave a few years back, falling on one's rear was a quick way to do it. That's what happened to me. I was walking along and suddenly--SPLAT! I sat there with a sore spine and instant enlightenment. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:58:25 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126185825.006ad9ac@mail.eden.com> At 01:05 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: m.k. ramadoss >> > I agree that we want to keep our language clear, lucid, and not >> > unnecessarily buried in arcane terminology. On the other hand, >> > I wouldn't rope off the depths of the ocean and say that there >> > should only be wading in the shallow waters. >> > >> > -- Eldon >> > >> I see your point. Should we set up multiple theos-ls catering to >> different fog levels. Just an idea. > >Theos-fog? Theos-smart? Theos-dumb? Theos-101? > >> >> There is yet another problem which needs to be addressed. I would preface >> it to say I do not have a solution. >> >> The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the >> less intelligent, less educated person. It would be a very valuable >> statistical information to find out the distribution of TS members by >> various categories such as age, sex, ethnic background, religious >> background, education, profession, etc. I know of no such study so far. >> If this kind of information is available, then TS can think of how to >> reach the various under represented segments of the population. May be >> such an effort may be the salvation of TS in the 21st century. >> >> Any one has any ideas? >> >When I started out reading material that was beyond what was taught in my >Roman Catholic belief system, I took out Edgar Cayce books from the >library. They were hardbacks that were donated by study groups. >I seriously doubt that I would have been interested in anything like >the intellectual level of the former Quest - I was only 21 and from >a limited educational background. > >BTW, thanks again, Doss, for posting the article on TS in 1925. >I've been a member of the LCC since 1971 and never heard of >this history. But, perhaps, they never really wanted most people >to hear about it. It's pretty hairy stuff that reads like a fantasy >to me - yet I wonder what percentage of it may possibly be >true. > >-AEB > Dear Ann: So far I have not seen anyone disputing what Wood had stated. He was a very honorable and credible person. This issue of the three leg approach of TS - TS/ES, LCC, Co-Mason is an interesting stuff. George Arundale was made a Bishop and was addressed as Bishop Arundale and there was a very interesting episode involving K which ended Arundale calling himself with his LCC title. One of these days I will post it. Another issue of current interest is, right now some lawyers and accountants are salivating and some are already lining their pockets with the on going litigation in Denver in which some of the well known members of TSA are involved as plaintiffs -- some names *all* would recognize. Money donated for charitable purposes being squandered to line the pockets of lawyers. Does is sound a familiar re-run? ...MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:57:43 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <970126135739_274602543@emout13.mail.aol.com> Ann, I really like the idea of theos-dumb. Next time you're in the Olcott Library, start digging through the Adyar Theosophists from around 1911 to 1925. You'll find stuff you wouldn't believe. Those people were NUTS!!!! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:02:32 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126190232.00721278@mail.eden.com> At 01:38 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >Doss, >And I write books! Even I have to wade through his crap to find out he isn't >saying anything. > >So I just don't bother with anything he writes anymore. > >Chuck the Heretic Chuck: When Dorothy was President and when I found that Quest was useless to me and was throwing it in waste paper basket as soon as it was received, I wrote to her telling her of it and requested that my name be deleted from the Quest mailing list. It could have saved some trees. Believe it or not, it continued to arrive and got to the waste paper basket as ususal. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:14:16 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126191416.006f3c04@mail.eden.com> At 01:49 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >Doss, >Thanks for posting this stuff. I once wrote that 1925 was the year the TS >went berserk and for those lucky enough to have access to them, they should >look at the Adyar Theosophist issues for that year. > >The one incident that always strikes me was at the Star camp at Ommen when >Rukmini got up and said that she spoke as an Arhat--and nobody laughed at >her! The mass of imbeciles and assorted morons that seemed to make up the >bulk of membership at that time must have believed her, otherwise how could >they have tolerated such a ridiculous statement? > >The year 1925 was the point where behavior deserving only of ridicule was >treated with reverence. Gad! I wish I had been there! > >Chuck the Heretic Chuck: It took me a very long time to find out some of the things that took place in 1925. Usually if you ask someone in TS (especially anyone who was/is part of the administration) about these matters, either you will not get a response or you will be told what does it matter to *you*. IMHO it is very important that we plant our foot on the ground and look and follow the Truth, whatever it may be, rather than follow some personality or be led by the nose by someone. The latter is childish and let us grow up and stand on our own feet. Also the latter is easy and has built in potential for exploitation by the personality or leader. It is also stated in Wood's book, that after a year after closing of the ES, Leadbeater and several others went to AB and requested her to reopen ES because the members could not self police themselves and had to be told what to do and policed. Then she reopened it. I do not know where TS would be today if she did not reopen it. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:42:06 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126194206.006c60c4@mail.eden.com> At 02:11 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >At 01:05 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >>---------- >>> From: m.k. ramadoss >>> > I agree that we want to keep our language clear, lucid, and not >>> > unnecessarily buried in arcane terminology. On the other hand, >>> > I wouldn't rope off the depths of the ocean and say that there >>> > should only be wading in the shallow waters. >>> > >>> > -- Eldon >>> > >>> I see your point. Should we set up multiple theos-ls catering to >>> different fog levels. Just an idea. >> >>Theos-fog? Theos-smart? Theos-dumb? Theos-101? >> >>> >>> There is yet another problem which needs to be addressed. I would preface >>> it to say I do not have a solution. >>> >>> The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the >>> less intelligent, less educated person. It would be a very valuable >>> statistical information to find out the distribution of TS members by >>> various categories such as age, sex, ethnic background, religious >>> background, education, profession, etc. I know of no such study so far. >>> If this kind of information is available, then TS can think of how to >>> reach the various under represented segments of the population. May be >>> such an effort may be the salvation of TS in the 21st century. >>> >>> Any one has any ideas? >>> >>When I started out reading material that was beyond what was taught in my >>Roman Catholic belief system, I took out Edgar Cayce books from the >>library. They were hardbacks that were donated by study groups. >>I seriously doubt that I would have been interested in anything like >>the intellectual level of the former Quest - I was only 21 and from >>a limited educational background. >> >>BTW, thanks again, Doss, for posting the article on TS in 1925. >>I've been a member of the LCC since 1971 and never heard of >>this history. But, perhaps, they never really wanted most people >>to hear about it. It's pretty hairy stuff that reads like a fantasy >>to me - yet I wonder what percentage of it may possibly be >>true. >> >>-AEB >> > > >Dear Ann: > > So far I have not seen anyone disputing what Wood had stated. He was a >very honorable and credible person. > > This issue of the three leg approach of TS - TS/ES, LCC, Co-Mason is an >interesting stuff. George Arundale was made a Bishop and was addressed as >Bishop Arundale and there was a very interesting episode involving K which >ended Arundale calling himself with his LCC title. One of these days I will >post it. > > Another issue of current interest is, right now some lawyers and >accountants are salivating and some are already lining their pockets with >the on going litigation in Denver in which some of the well known members of >TSA are involved as plaintiffs -- some names *all* would recognize. Money >donated for charitable purposes being squandered to line the pockets of >lawyers. Does is sound a familiar re-run? > > ...MKR I forgot to mention that the above litigation is in Co-Masonry between the Paris faction and the US Organization. BTW, Officially TSA/TS has no connection with Co-Masonry! ...MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 13:46:57 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Maillist Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126194657.006e58f8@mail.eden.com> Hi Just to give you some idea of how a maillist can catch on. Two days ago I found out about a maillist just started. In two days, 183 subscribers are there. Many are yet to find out about it. Will not be surprised if it reaches 1000s soon. It deals with Cyrix processors which are compatible with Pentiums and are cheaper. We have in maillist a dynamite. It is only a question how we can use it for Theosophy. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:25:09 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: The Condition of the TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <9701262025.AA22820@toto.csustan.edu> Chuck writes: >The one incident that always strikes me was at the Star camp at >Ommen when Rukmini got up and said that she spoke as an >Arhat--and nobody laughed at her! The mass of imbeciles and >assorted morons that seemed to make up the bulk of membership at >that time must have believed her, otherwise how could >they have tolerated such a ridiculous statement? > >The year 1925 was the point where behavior deserving only of >ridicule was treated with reverence. Gad! I wish I had been >there! > >Chuck the Heretic JHE But the punch line is that the inner group that has been controlling the TS ever since still believes all of this stuff! That is why I lost hope for the TS. ------------------------------------------ |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: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:59:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Condition of the TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970126225901.006dfb20@mail.eden.com> At 03:21 PM 1/26/97 -0500, JHE wrote: > >Chuck writes: >>The one incident that always strikes me was at the Star camp at >>Ommen when Rukmini got up and said that she spoke as an >>Arhat--and nobody laughed at her! The mass of imbeciles and >>assorted morons that seemed to make up the bulk of membership at >>that time must have believed her, otherwise how could >>they have tolerated such a ridiculous statement? >> >>The year 1925 was the point where behavior deserving only of >>ridicule was treated with reverence. Gad! I wish I had been >>there! >> >>Chuck the Heretic > > > >JHE >But the punch line is that the inner group that has been >controlling the TS ever since still believes all of this stuff! >That is why I lost hope for the TS. > I quote below from an earlier quote: =========================== Several times I discussed with Krishnamurti the function of the Theosophical Society. He said: You cannot organize truth." I pointed out that the Society was intended to be only a business organization. It existed for the promotion of truth, but did not say what that truth was. " I am afraid you cannot have such a brotherhood," was his reply. " Consider the weakness of human nature. Some creed will get control of the thing, or will be fighting for it and giving trouble all the time' PS: I here refers to Ernest Wood. ===================================== May be K saw this coming even then. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:13:22 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <32ebc3eb.517338@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> M K Ramadoss wrote: ? (again) I received 4 or 5 messages from you, today, Doss, 3 of which, one in the thread "Intuition and thinking," and 2 in the thread "Low Fog Index," which had no words in the bodies, and showed 0 lines in them. You might want to re-post those. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:13:29 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Re Truth Message-ID: <32eec6b2.1227793@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: > Of course perception is involved here. Nothing at all is true >or false but what we perceive. Perception is everything. I do not >believe that "objective truth" exists per se, except in a relative >sense. I am not clear what you mean by "except in a relative sense," but this seems like pure subjectivism, or what some people call the primacy of consciousness over reality, to me. I infer that you mean that we create our own reality and that there is no reality but what we perceive. Given time and effort, we can change ourselves and our circumstances, but only to a certain extent. If we went to the Super Bowl today and asked all 70,000 people in the stands whether or not they were watching a football game, and all 70,000 said they were, pure subjectivism, since it does not believe in the existence of an objective football game, would have to consider that to be an amazing coincidence. It may take some element of faith either way, but I would consider that to be powerful evidence of an objective football game. If I habitually lied, and people learned not to trust me, I would be objectively wrong to believe that people really trusted me. If I jumped into the Grand Canyon and crashed to the bottom, pure subjectivism would ask me why I created the reality of crashing to the bottom if it hurt. Objectivism would say that the reality of my crashing to the bottom trumps any perception of mine to the contrary. In the Mahatma letter that Doss recently posted, K. H. talked about how paranormal powers were just as subject to law as the simplest physical processes were. When I think of objective reality, it is these universal laws that I think of first. Assuming they exist, there is nothing anyone can do about them. Perceiving them differently cannot change them in the least. >For example, pink elephants seen by a drunk have >objective reality for the drunk. His perception would be real, but the pink elephants would not be. >Dreams seem real and have objective >reality to us while we are dreaming. There is a significant difference between seeming to be real and being real. >Perception changes over time >because our objective reality itself changes. My perception of the law of karma constantly changes, but I do not believe it is because the law itself changes. My perception of what happened last year changes, but that does not mean that what happened last year changes. >Our objective reality >always tends to express our subjective reality, and vice versa. Perception cannot take place unless there is something objective to perceive. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:19:54 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: us chicks Message-ID: In message <199701260946.EAA09825@envirolink.org>, John Straughn writes >I think it is a male thing. I wish I could get rid of it. There are ways, there are ways .... 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, 26 Jan 1997 17:18:46 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Maillist Message-ID: <199701262322.SAA10150@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > Just to give you some idea of how a maillist can catch on. Two days ago I > found out about a maillist just started. In two days, 183 subscribers are > there. Many are yet to find out about it. Will not be surprised if it > reaches 1000s soon. It deals with Cyrix processors which are compatible with > Pentiums and are cheaper. > > We have in maillist a dynamite. It is only a question how we can use it for > Theosophy. > I think it's going to depend how many people are interested in Theosophy. As for a mailing with 1,000 subscribers, does that translate into 200 posts a day? I logged off a list that would send me 100 because I do not have time for it. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:23:00 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <199701262322.SAA10171@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Doss, > Thanks for posting this stuff. I once wrote that 1925 was the year the TS > went berserk and for those lucky enough to have access to them, they should > look at the Adyar Theosophist issues for that year. > > The one incident that always strikes me was at the Star camp at Ommen when > Rukmini got up and said that she spoke as an Arhat--and nobody laughed at > her! The mass of imbeciles and assorted morons that seemed to make up the > bulk of membership at that time must have believed her, otherwise how could > they have tolerated such a ridiculous statement? > ar·hat (är¹het) noun Buddhism. One who has attained enlightenment. [Sanskrit, from present participle of arhati, he deserves.] — ar¹hat·ship“ noun Mighty big shoes to fill! > The year 1925 was the point where behavior deserving only of ridicule was > treated with reverence. Gad! I wish I had been there! > Me too. I told my husband I wish I could step into a time machine and really see what it was like first-hand. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:27:12 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Shut down of ES by Annie Besant Message-ID: <199701262326.SAA11918@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > Ann, > According to a lecture Reuben gave a few years back, falling on one's rear > was a quick way to do it. > > That's what happened to me. I was walking along and suddenly--SPLAT! I sat > there with a sore spine and instant enlightenment. > I see. The blow to the lower chakras must make the energy rise up, sort of like an Mercury thermometer that overheats and blows its top. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 23:24:09 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Arundale Message-ID: "ARUNDALE, George Sydney 1.12.1878 - 12.8.1945 Cons. 4 August 1925 at Huizen, Holland, by J.I.WEDGWOOD assisted by J.A.MAZEL & F.W.PIGOTT, having been ordained priest by Wedgwood on 26 July 1925. One of the founders of the (Theosophical) Order of the Star in the East, he became Liberal Catholic Regionary Bishop for India in 1926. In 1934 he resigned in order to become President of the Theosophical Society. The main objective of the Order of the Star in the East is said to have been to promote the claims made for J.Krishnamurti by C.W.LEADBEATER and others as the forthcoming "World Teacher," the "Lord Maitreya" - regarded as a second incarnation of Christ. Krishnamurti later repudiated this claim. Arundale was Professor of History at the Central Hindu College in Benares, India, from 1909 to 1913. In 1920 the government of the Maharajah of Holkar nominated him Minister of Education." >From my "Bishops Irregular," 1985. 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, 26 Jan 1997 23:12:31 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: In message <199701261803.NAA29634@newman.concentric.net>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes >BTW, thanks again, Doss, for posting the article on TS in 1925. >I've been a member of the LCC since 1971 and never heard of >this history. But, perhaps, they never really wanted most people >to hear about it. It's pretty hairy stuff that reads like a fantasy >to me - yet I wonder what percentage of it may possibly be >true. 100% 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, 26 Jan 97 19:42:13 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Titus's question Message-ID: <199701270042.TAA21096@leo.vsla.edu> Dear Titus, You ask about the "journalistic drive" behind my writings, and ask that Daniel Caldwell and I each give a "significance" for our conclusions or for our questions. I stated when I came back on the list that my rebuttal on the Web would be my last response to criticisms of my previous work, although I would answer questions privately. So please feel free to ask anything you like of me, but not to the list. Debates of historical matters belong on theos-roots, not theos-l, which is why I subscribe to this list and not to that one, having given more than enough time and effort to debates. All I can say here is that initially I did not imagine that my research would lead to identifying any Masters, that I stumbled upon such clues only after completing a first draft and submitting it to a publisher, and that after beginning the process of identifying Master figures I was hopeful that the work would be well-received in Theosophical circles. It was up to a point. I was a devoted Theosophist through the entire process of research, writing and publication, although subsequent reactions have dampened my feelings toward the movement considerably. Cheers Paul From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:02:26 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Intuition and thinking (to Chuck) Message-ID: <970126200225_1692795272@emout13.mail.aol.com> Doss, Nothing that comes out of Olcott surprises me. Taking your name off the list would have been beyond the capacity of the computer program. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <970126200818_1545254930@emout08.mail.aol.com> Doss, One of the advantages of having a lot of free time and living near Olcott was the ability to dig in the old journals and so I discovered that stuff within a year after joining. I found it hilarious and just could not stop reading it, never knowing what lunacy would be revealed next. It was so nice to be in a society that revered people who made me look sane by comparison. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:11:20 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The Condition of the TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <970126201119_241498135@emout20.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-26 18:12:31 EST, you write: > May be K saw this coming even then. How could he have missed if, assuming he could stop laughing long enough. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:13:16 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Maillist Message-ID: <970126201316_581079962@emout05.mail.aol.com> Ann, You don't have to read them all! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:16:42 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <970126201641_241498144@emout10.mail.aol.com> Ann, I'll bet that Star camp meeting was a bigger freak show than Lourdes. No lame and halt, just the stupid and ridiculous. And of course there are still those elderly members who think that Rukmini was a holy saint airhead--er--arhat. Airhead was what she really was. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 08:40:52 -0500 (EST) From: Gnosis@aol.com Subject: subscription Message-ID: <970126084052_2058030677@emout10.mail.aol.com> "Unsubscribe" Thank you, Gnosis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:18:46 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Shut down of ES by Annie Besant Message-ID: <970126201845_103210403@emout05.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-26 18:45:26 EST, you write: >I see. The blow to the lower chakras must make the energy rise up, >sort of like an Mercury thermometer that overheats and blows its top. > >-AEB Ann, That's basically what Reuben said, only he wasn't kidding. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:20:23 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Arundale Message-ID: <970126202022_-2046110682@emout19.mail.aol.com> Alan, In Arundale's case it would "Bishops very irregular, choirboys beware!" Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 01:41:54 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: TS Membership Drop - A View - Part I Message-ID: <33030702.17691397@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> M K Ramadoss wrote: >3. For anyone interested in K's philosophy/teaching/thinking, there is a >mailing list listening-l where intense discussion is going on all the >various issues relating to K's stand. It is unmoderated just like theos-xxxx >and can be subscribed to by sending a msg to listserv@zrz.tu-berlin.de with >a msg in the body > > subscribe LISTENING-L your name > >..MKR Doss: Is there another way to access it? I sent a message to listserv@zrz.tu-berlin.de, with subscribe LISTENING-L Tom Robertson in the body, and received the following response: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 97 23:13:49 +0000 From: TUBerlin/ZRZ ListServ Subject: Re: > subscribe LISTENING-L Tom Robertson Mailing list LISTENING-L is unknown to ListServ. Processing started Mon, 27 Jan 97 00:13:48 Processing ended Mon, 27 Jan 97 00:13:49 Virtually, ListServ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 02:27:40 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Annie Besant and inflation Message-ID: <33060eef.19720821@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Titus wrote: >Thanks to M K Ramadoss for reprinting excerpts from Wood's book. It has been interesting reading. Is the book not available in libraries of the TS? >Was Annie Besant evil? No. Did her >naivete and presumption cause some terrible damage? Yes. Thsi reminds me of Nietzsche's comment about how the greatest fault of a noble person is to fail to realize that others are not so noble. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:21:20 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <199701270230.VAA12711@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > >Dear Ann: > > This issue of the three leg approach of TS - TS/ES, LCC, Co-Mason is an > >interesting stuff. George Arundale was made a Bishop and was addressed as > >Bishop Arundale and there was a very interesting episode involving K which > >ended Arundale calling himself with his LCC title. One of these days I will > >post it. > > > > Another issue of current interest is, right now some lawyers and > >accountants are salivating and some are already lining their pockets with > >the on going litigation in Denver in which some of the well known members of > >TSA are involved as plaintiffs -- some names *all* would recognize. Money > >donated for charitable purposes being squandered to line the pockets of > >lawyers. Does is sound a familiar re-run? > > > > ...MKR > > I forgot to mention that the above litigation is in Co-Masonry between > the Paris faction and the US Organization. > Are they still going at that?! Someone connected with the ES/TS,LCC and Co-Masons once told me that belonging to all three was THE PATH. He was encouraging/pestering me to join all three. I think it it is rather presumptuous for any person to claim to know what is another's path. I also think this is the kind of thing that has been a problem. Some people in the TS organization began to think they could tell members what kind of life to lead and what spiritual path to follow, even down to tying their shoes laces right. If you read some of CWL's material on the Occult life, he will tell you what kind of pictures to hang on your walls, what kind of bed to use (no mattress, just strips across a frame), what kind of clothes to wear (loose and flowing) and what kind of material those clothes should be made of (CWL hated wool-said that it could never get really clean. Did they have dry cleaning in those days?). This sort of thing sifted over to the LCC, where he prescribed silk underwear for the clergy and gold thread crosses and edging for the vestments. He said it conveyed the forces better. Whether it does or not, today gold metallic thread stuff costs a BUNDLE. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:32:03 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Shut down of ES by Annie Besant Message-ID: <199701270230.VAA13013@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: M K Ramadoss > > Couple of practical items I picked up from K's books and videos. One > is practical application of dealing with everyone as a human being -- no > matter what their occupation or achievements or failures are. The second is > the need to be pro active and deal with things now. Third is to keep a low > profile. Fourth is to speak up or act when needed without any fear > distorting our actions. No abstract stuff. Just plain down to earth. All > these have helped me a lot in my every day dealings with others. > This reminds of a lecture given almost 10 years ago by Ray Grasse at Olcott that impressed me. He said, "Life is teacher." That would imply that organizations, gurus, churches, etc. are superfluous and that every moment of our lives is an opportunity to learn and be enlightened. Every person we meet (even on the Internet) is an opportunity to learn something about them and ourselves. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 02:39:22 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Sub Listening-L problems Message-ID: <01BC0BFB.5E8061A0@rvik-ppp-117.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0BFB.5E912A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tom, try to put the command in "Subject" - no text. M K Ramadoss wrote: >3. For anyone interested in K's philosophy/teaching/thinking, there is a >mailing list listening-l where intense discussion is going on all the >various issues relating to K's stand. It is unmoderated just like theos-xxxx >and can be subscribed to by sending a msg to listserv@zrz.tu-berlin.de with >a msg in the body > > subscribe LISTENING-L your name > >..MKR Doss: Is there another way to access it? I sent a message to listserv@zrz.tu-berlin.de, with subscribe LISTENING-L Tom Robertson in the body, and received the following response: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 97 23:13:49 +0000 From: TUBerlin/ZRZ ListServ Subject: Re: > subscribe LISTENING-L Tom Robertson Mailing list LISTENING-L is unknown to ListServ. Processing started Mon, 27 Jan 97 00:13:48 Processing ended Mon, 27 Jan 97 00:13:49 Virtually, ListServ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:59:33 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: truth Message-ID: <199701270313.WAA18769@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >There is a significant difference between seeming to be real and being >real. What is it? How do you tell? Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 03:23:41 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Sub Listening-L problems Message-ID: <330c1c66.23167694@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB wrote: >Tom, try to put the command in "Subject" - no text. At your suggestion, I tried that, but the same thing resulted. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 22:45:06 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: truth Message-ID: <199701270359.WAA03188@ultra1.dreamscape.com> >My perception of what happened last >year changes, but that does not mean that what happened last year changes. > That's a slippery slope, because all you remember from last year is what you remember now, and your memory of the event changes. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 22:15:38 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970127041538.0069e2e4@mail.eden.com> At 08:24 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >Ann, >I'll bet that Star camp meeting was a bigger freak show than Lourdes. No >lame and halt, just the stupid and ridiculous. > >And of course there are still those elderly members who think that Rukmini >was a holy saint airhead--er--arhat. > >Airhead was what she really was. > >Chuck the Heretic > Chuck: To Rukmini's credit, there were two activities in which she did some good. The first was reviving the traditional Indian Dance which was one time practiced only by Temple Women. She was the first one to from the elite Indian Class to take up the dance. She has built a University for Dance and Music and Arts and is very famous in India today. Today Indian Dance is art of choice of everybody in India and even for most of the Indians in the USA. She was also very active in animal welfare movement in India and was responsible for many legislative changes as she was a member of the upper chamber of the Parliament. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 22:15:39 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Arundale Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970127041539.006929f4@mail.eden.com> At 08:26 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >Alan, >In Arundale's case it would "Bishops very irregular, choirboys beware!" > >Chuck the Heretic > According to Wood, Arundale was sent to Australia to knock some sense into his head. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 22:17:24 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970127041724.0068de74@mail.eden.com> , At 06:18 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: > >? (again) > >I received 4 or 5 messages from you, today, Doss, 3 of which, one in the >thread "Intuition and thinking," and 2 in the thread "Low Fog Index," which >had no words in the bodies, and showed 0 lines in them. You might want to >re-post those. > > > I also received one of my low fog index posts just with header and no body. I am reposting the messages. I am also copying this msg to John Mead so that he may want to look into it. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:21:52 -0800 From: "Eldon B. Tucker" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970126202150.006b35d0@mail.deltanet.com> Doss: >I see your point. Should we set up multiple theos-ls catering to >different fog levels. Just an idea. I'm not sure that different fog levels are necessary. Long sentences with difficult grammar can be minimized in any level of discussion. When the discussion gets technical and certain terms are used that might need explanation, the writer can always add a few words of introduction or somehow lighten up the writing to keep it from getting totally obscure. >There is yet another problem which needs to be addressed. I would preface >it to say I do not have a solution. > >The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the >less intelligent, less educated person. But which *part* of Theosophy? A simple cosmology and discussion of the nature of the world and our place in it could be presented. This would almost, though, sound like sunday school lessons, since we might not have hard science backing up many of the points. And it falls short of the heart of the movment: the Path. Is our goal to sprinkle tidbits of occult, mystical, philosophical concepts into the mainstream of popular thought? >It would be a very valuable >statistical information to find out the distribution of TS members by >various categories such as age, sex, ethnic background, religious >background, education, profession, etc. I know of no such study so far. This could be used to contrast theosophical groups with others that are reaching out to the public. Some appeal to college kids and young adults. Others attract people in their middle-age. Yet others appeal to older people, perhaps retired. The appeal is based upon two things: what's offered and how it's presented. What are we offering? Uniquely, we have certain occult doctrines and workable spiritual practices that can be derived from them, although those practices aren't spelled out, being left in a do-it-yourself manner. In a more general sense, we have organizations that would or might become spiritual self-help groups. Mutual support might be offered within the membership, quite independent of anything special that is to be found in Theosophy. >If this kind of information is available, then TS can think of how to >reach the various under represented segments of the population. May be >such an effort may be the salvation of TS in the 21st century. It's not the TS that needs salvation, it's orphan humanity that has the big problem. The TS is or could be a tool to assist in that effort. Its original charter, Blavatsky's initial intentions, etc. all don't mean that much. The big question is what is the TS today, and how can it be put to use in the Plan (the work of compassion, the living out of the Bodhisattva Vow, the work of making the kingdom of heaven here on earth, the spiritual work of manifesting the unseen beauties awaiting their turn to exist, etc...) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 27 02:59:18 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: Sub Listening-L problems Message-ID: <199701270759.CAA03379@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB wrote: > >>Tom, try to put the command in "Subject" - no text. > >At your suggestion, I tried that, but the same thing resulted. Linux is very particular in case. Don't capitalize any of it, just like theos- l. If that doesn't work, trycapitalizing the L in listening. If that doesn't work, then you know the hairless purple bunnies are out to get ya. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon Jan 27 03:03:23 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: truth Message-ID: <199701270803.DAA03522@envirolink.org> liesel f. deutsch writes: >>There is a significant difference between seeming to be real and being >>real. > >What is it? How do you tell? > >Liesel There is no difference. Relativity provides for interrelation. Anything that you define as real is your own relative viewpoint. Because that viewpoint is relative, and therefore interrelated with reality, it is real. I'm researching the idea behind relativity right now, and hopefully I'll be able to explain more and provide more examples as I progress. For now, think about this statement: I am always leaving and I am always going somewhere, even as I sit still. No, this is not the unanswerable question relating to zen, however, it could be, relatively. There is an explanation for its truth. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 18:22:16 -0800 From: Mika Perala Subject: Re: condition of TS 1925 Message-ID: <32EC1158.E73@dlc.fi> M.K. Ramadoss wrote: > It took me a very long time to find out some of the things that took place > in 1925. Usually if you ask someone in TS (especially anyone who was/is part > of the administration) about these matters, either you will not get a > response or you will be told what does it matter to *you*. I did not know much of this stuff until I saw a dream about an old lady who was a member and she told me to remember the year 1925. Then I went to the TS-library and read the Theosophy-magazines of that year and found these articles by Besant and others from 1925 up to dissolving of the Order of the Star. I couldn`t believe what I was reading. Apostoles and stuff.Yak! 8) Actually I was looking for the picture of the lady in my dream. There was no picture of course but I got the message... Mika From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:20:29 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Shut down of ES by Annie Besant Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970127132029.006fb6e8@mail.eden.com> At 09:34 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: M K Ramadoss >> >> Couple of practical items I picked up from K's books and videos. One >> is practical application of dealing with everyone as a human being -- no >> matter what their occupation or achievements or failures are. The second is >> the need to be pro active and deal with things now. Third is to keep a low >> profile. Fourth is to speak up or act when needed without any fear >> distorting our actions. No abstract stuff. Just plain down to earth. All >> these have helped me a lot in my every day dealings with others. >> >This reminds of a lecture given almost 10 years ago by Ray Grasse >at Olcott that impressed me. He said, "Life is teacher." That would >imply that organizations, gurus, churches, etc. are superfluous and that >every moment of our lives is an opportunity to learn and be >enlightened. Every person we meet (even on the Internet) is an >opportunity to learn something about them and ourselves. > >-AEB > I agree with you. I recall somewhere in ML there is a statement that even a stone can teach you. After all said and done, our daily interaction with others - personal or any other medium -- is field of action where we can both contribute and learn -- practical application of helping the "Orphan Humanity". ...mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:20:38 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970127132038.006a1d5c@mail.eden.com> At 09:33 PM 1/26/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: M K Ramadoss >> >Dear Ann: >> > This issue of the three leg approach of TS - TS/ES, LCC, Co-Mason is an >> >interesting stuff. George Arundale was made a Bishop and was addressed as >> >Bishop Arundale and there was a very interesting episode involving K which >> >ended Arundale calling himself with his LCC title. One of these days I will >> >post it. >> > >> > Another issue of current interest is, right now some lawyers and >> >accountants are salivating and some are already lining their pockets with >> >the on going litigation in Denver in which some of the well known members of >> >TSA are involved as plaintiffs -- some names *all* would recognize. Money >> >donated for charitable purposes being squandered to line the pockets of >> >lawyers. Does is sound a familiar re-run? >> > >> > ...MKR >> >> I forgot to mention that the above litigation is in Co-Masonry between >> the Paris faction and the US Organization. >> >Are they still going at that?! > >Someone connected with the ES/TS,LCC and Co-Masons once told me >that belonging to all three was THE PATH. He was encouraging/pestering me to join all >three. Let me add to what I have already said. All the three can help an individual in self improvement; but it is something that one should be comfortable with and may be irrevocable. I have very good friends who are in one or more of the three. But, one of the things that appeals to a lot people is this idea of graded progress along with open recognition. For example in Masonry there are 33 degrees. One may like to work to reach the 33 degree and may feel good that he/she is 33 while there are many in lower degrees. In LCC we have the Bishop and down to the lay member. A lay member may feel good when he/she is made the Bishop or even the Pope of the World. If that is what one wants, then they should go for it. Again when you reach the top, you have the administrative power and discretion to reward or punish those in lower levels by either awarding a higher recognition or withholding it and sometimes throwing you out. It is human nature to use these kinds of power. But I guarantee you that once you are in all the three, you will not be posting here as open and as free as you are now. The threat of ex-communication or some other punishment is always there and is a powerful tool traditionally and routinely used either overtly or covertly to keep people in line, especially when you are working to reach the top level. My 2 cents worth. I may be wrong. You are the best judge. MKR > >I think it it is rather presumptuous for any person to claim to know what is another's >path. I also think this is the kind of thing that has been a problem. Some people in the >TS organization began to think they could tell members what kind of life to lead and what >spiritual path to follow, even down to tying their shoes laces right. If From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:37:25 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <199701271319.IAA27908@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Doss, > One of the advantages of having a lot of free time and living near Olcott was > the ability to dig in the old journals and so I discovered that stuff within > a year after joining. I found it hilarious and just could not stop reading > it, never knowing what lunacy would be revealed next. > It was so nice to be in a society that revered people who made me look sane > by comparison. > Why don't you write a book from your research? Or has that already been done? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:36:17 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Maillist Message-ID: <199701271319.IAA27899@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Ann, > You don't have to read them all! > What do I do? Make an arbitarary cutoff number and the trash the ones after that? Besides the 100 messages, a lot of them were stuff like HI, HOWYA DOING BUDDY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY SAMMY, HAPPY ANNIVERSAY GEORGE AND DORIS. Then there was the THANK YOU FOR THE BIRTHDAY/ANNIVERSAY GREETING ones. And there was nothing else in these posts. HAVE A NICE BLEEPING DAY! -Ann E. Bermingham From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:45:33 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <199701271319.IAA27915@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Dr. A.M.Bain > > In message <199701261803.NAA29634@newman.concentric.net>, "Ann E. > Bermingham" writes > >BTW, thanks again, Doss, for posting the article on TS in 1925. > >I've been a member of the LCC since 1971 and never heard of > >this history. But, perhaps, they never really wanted most people > >to hear about it. It's pretty hairy stuff that reads like a fantasy > >to me - yet I wonder what percentage of it may possibly be > >true. > > 100% > I was bit unclear in my post. I meant whether any of the claims to arhat, initiate or contact with the Masters/Lord Christ were valid. Those are things that I imagine are QUITE hard to prove. Actually, I believe someone with those kind of upper-level contacts probably is working their tail off and not spending the time making goofy announcements to the world. I can see it now. "I'm an arhat," says Sam to someone he's met on the bus. That person turns to him and says, "Is that a new basketball team or what?" -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:39:57 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <199701271345.IAA04259@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Eldon B. Tucker > > . . . it falls short of the heart of the movment: the Path. Is our goal > to sprinkle tidbits of occult, mystical, philosophical concepts > into the mainstream of popular thought? As far as I can tell, that's already been done by the New Age movement television and Hollywood movies. > > It's not the TS that needs salvation, it's orphan humanity that > has the big problem. This statement gives me the shivers because it smacks of arrogance. And it also prevents TSA from honestly looking at itself and seeing where the problems really exist in it's own presentation to the public. Maybe you didn't intend to mean it that way, but I have heard it before in articles in TSA publications. "All we have to do is sit tight another 100 years and humanity will FINALLY catch up to us in consciousness. So let's just take a chair and have another cup of coffee till it happens." One hundred years later you may find yourselves in a storefront and barely in business. Anyone in that orphan humanity, who are really your siblings, will sense that tone in TSA's approach and run like the blazes in the opposite direction. You can't sit in an ivory tower. You have to REACH OUT TO PEOPLE WITH WARMTH AND FELLOWSHIP AND BE WILLING TO TAKE RISKS. >The TS is or could be a tool to assist in > that effort. Its original charter, Blavatsky's initial intentions, etc. > all don't mean that much. The big question is what is the TS today, > and how can it be put to use in the Plan (the work of compassion, the > living out of the Bodhisattva Vow, the work of making the kingdom of > heaven here on earth, the spiritual work of manifesting the unseen > beauties awaiting their turn to exist, etc...) > Good idea. And that effort can best be served by using the tools and the language of the day - like the Internet. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 07:43:13 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <199701271345.IAA04270@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Eldon B. Tucker > > Or with the advent of the Internet, anyone can be published, > regardless of the size of readership. You or I could write for an > audience of 125, and be understood. We wouldn't have to restrict what > we're saying, and keep it to a high degree of simplicity, to make it > acceptable to 2 million subscribers. > Now you're talking! Go for it! -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:13:00 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Arundale Message-ID: <970127141255_1212031889@emout12.mail.aol.com> Doss, If he was around CWL his was not what was knocked into. That's why they had those vestements in the LCC. It was an opportunity to cross-dress. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:26:36 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <970127141017_73821711@emout13.mail.aol.com> Doss, You don't have to be an airhead--er--arhat to do that. On the other hand, I've worked with dancers and I have yet to meet one with a working brain. Or a sense of humor. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:35:09 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Arundale (whoops) Message-ID: <970127141414_1420818067@emout18.mail.aol.com> Doss, That last message should have said that his head was not what was knocked into. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 15:30:26 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: <19970127211738.AAA13823@JerrySchueler> Doss: >> The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the >> less intelligent, less educated person. ... We won't. We can't. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, people concentrate their time on basic survival first, then safety, and only then will they begin to think about such things as theosophy. Unfortunately, the masses are all pretty much wrapped up on Maslow's lower levels, and don't have much time for such things as theosophy. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:07:11 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Some Responses to Tom Message-ID: <19970127211738.AAB13823@JerrySchueler> Jerry S.: >> I do not >>believe that "objective truth" exists per se, except in a relative >>sense. Tom: >I am not clear what you mean by "except in a relative sense," but this >seems like pure subjectivism, or what some people call the primacy of >consciousness over reality, to me. I infer that you mean that we create >our own reality and that there is no reality but what we perceive. There is no such thing as "pure subjectivism." Subject and object are two sides of a duality, and one can't exist without the other. What I mean is exactly what you say in the last sentence above. Every subjective I has its own objective world or reality around it. We (the monads in this life wave) do create our own reality, and make up the rules of life, and agree to abide by them. Who else? >... It may take some element of faith either way, >but I would consider that to be powerful evidence of an objective football >game. You have obviously not read my Enochian Physics. Objectivity is as real as subjectivity. The only thing to remember is that each subjective I has its own objective Not-I. The fact that a lot of people see the same object is the result of the overlapping of Not-I's. >In the Mahatma letter that Doss recently posted, K. H. talked about how >paranormal powers were just as subject to law as the simplest physical >processes were. When I think of objective reality, it is these universal laws >that I think of first. Yes, and these "laws" are the agreements that we monads made at the beginning of this life wave through Globe D of the Earth Planetary Chain. >His perception would be real, but the pink elephants would not be. You are wrong, Tom. The pink elephants are as real as the computer that I am typing this on. They are not physical, like my computer, but real nonetheless. What is reality, but that which we can experience? Dreams, for example, are very real. The angels that are evoked in magic are very real. Hallucinations are actually objective reality seen by one person and not by others--a part of their Not-I that does not overlap. We all tend to think reality is what is overlapped (i.e., shared experiences). My thesis is that anything the I experiences is real--it has a mayavic (maya in the Buddhist sense) reality. In the sense of maya, everything that we experience is real. In a more absolute sense, nothing that we experience is real. >There is a significant difference between seeming to be real and being >real. The only difference is in our minds. What we believe to be real changes as we go through life. >My perception of the law of karma constantly changes, but I do not believe >it is because the law itself changes. My perception of what happened last >year changes, but that does not mean that what happened last year changes. Your perception is your reality. As your perception changes, so your reality changes. What is real for you may not be real for me because we have difference perceptions. This is the key to overcoming or extinguishing our past karma. The past is only as real as we recall it, and our karma affects us only as long as we allow it to do so. Karma is extinquished to the degree that we recognise the unreality of our past. Thats why all Adepts tell us to focus only on the present. >Perception cannot take place unless there is something objective to >perceive. There is always subject and object in dualism. This business only disappears in nonduality, which few theosophists understand and none have ever written about. However, it is true that our experiences always tend to substantiate our belief system. Whenever we experience something that doesn't fit into our belief system, we must either change our belief system (very difficult) or die (the usual case). The occult connection between our subjective self (I) and our objective world (Not-I) is called Fohat, and this mysterious force is the culprit rersponsible for our manifestation in space-time. It connects the polar sides of duality and makes non-duality possible. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:36:06 +0100 From: "Martin Euser" Subject: Subject: RE: Simple Language -to Einar Message-ID: <199701272135.WAA16480@venus.euro.net> Einar wrote: >My experience is that you can "wade" quite profound waters with people = that are new to the subject, if you keep the discussion in a everyday = language, and talk about it from a non-theoretical platform. I have conducted a series of courses for newcomers, which go through the = essential and fundamental principles of Theosophy, without mentioning = theosophy or the traditional technical terms. The trick, I have found, is to relate the whole thing to the everyday = experiences, and take it from a psychological experiential viewpoint. = Ad you have to make it practical and interesting, or no one will listen. Einar: could you give us one or two examples to illustrate your approach a bit more? Martin From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:38:17 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: Re: Global Spirituality Report - an internet publication Message-ID: <01BC0C9A.6A50AC20@rvik-ppp-202.ismennt.is> Dear Theos-L members. I would like to introduce a brand new e-mail publication that might interest some of you. I will just relay some excerpts from its first issue so that you can decide whether you should join. It is free of charge and hopefully a carrier of free thought as well. I Hope that you will like it. Einar. ---------- T H E G L O B A L S P I R I T U A L I T Y R E P O R T Sender: owner-gsr-l@epinet.co.uk Precedence: bulk Jointly published by United Communities of Spirit, http://www.silcom.com/~origin/ucs.html The Isbourne Foundation, http://www.isbourne.org/ Volume 1, No. 1, Monday, January 27, 1997 Inaugural Issue * Welcome to the Global Spirituality Report * Our Cause * Submissions and Subscriptions -----SNIPS----------- WELCOME TO THE GLOBAL SPIRITUALITY REPORT ....... the GSR is not a "discussion forum", in that subscribers cannot post directly to the list. Instead, it is a "moderated mailing list", and only the Editor can post messages. But this doesn't mean we don't want to hear from you. In fact, your participation and involvement is essential to the success and value of this network. .................. Our fundamental concern here is the "global network of light" -- the expanding web of connections and relationships and philosophies and projects that all seem to be working together, across the Internet and in the "real world". We want to find ways to accelerate the growth of this network, and to assist in gathering its resources together, helping to create a "global federation of light", so to speak. ............... Millions of spiritual people, from all kinds of religious and philosophic traditions, have some vision of a spiritual world, of a way our global civilization could become more spiritual, more truly loving, more honest and honorable, more deeply beautiful. There are as many such visions as there are religions, and they tend to overlap and sometimes compete against one another. Our objective is to find ways that these separate groups can learn to work together to achieve their common objectives. To us, it seems obvious that this kind of cooperation empowers the vision of each group. Thus -- whether you are a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Christian or a New Ager or a Wiccan -- if you believe that human beings must learn to love one another, and live within the healing power of divine grace, it seems to us that you are also a member of a larger communion, a kind of "universal church o f all humanity", which accepts all loving and honest people from every religion. ................... The GSR is a brand-new project, and is still somewhat experimental. We are still defining our agenda and mission, and the exact format for our publication. How long should it be? What "departments" should we include? What exactly are we trying to accomplish? ......... Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bahais, Zoroastrians -- and New Agers and esotericists and scholars and members of all religious and spiritual groups -- can exchange their ideas and visions for building a better world through the simple format of our GSR newsletter. ............. SUBMISSIONS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS Many of our GSR subscribers are writers and web developers, or are developing spiritual and religious projects in their home communities. We'd like to hear from you, and know something about your work, what you find exciting, and how you feel we can work together to further our own spiritual growth, and empower the flow of Spirit across the planet. .......... Any submissions sent by "reply" to GSR-L will be relayed to the Editor, who will review them and possibly discuss them with others on the editorial team. For help with your GSR-L subscription, send the command (one line email message with no subject) HELP to MAJORDOMO@epinet.co.uk To subscribe, send the command SUBSCRIBE GSR-L From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 14:05:54 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Comments Message-ID: <32ED26B8.753C@withoutwalls.com> A Few Sundry Comments: Krishnamurti wrote: >I hope you will not listen to >anyone, but will listen only to your own intuition, your own understanding, >and give a polite refusal to those who would be your interpreters." That's fine, until you hit your own blind spots. Then you say "Oh my God, that's what so-and-so's" been saying to me all along! If I'd only listened." ____________ Chuck re: Intrapsychic Theorems First of all thanks for responding. Secondly, these are theorems, it's perfectly fine to disagree. >Number five is silly. Just because I find brocolli unpalatable does not mean >that I'm afraid of it. It just tastes yucky to my tummy. >On the other hand, I really like the architecture of roller coasters but >there is no way on this earth you would get me onto one. THEY do scare the >living daylights out of me. Granted that there may be different levels of perception involved, do you not think that at some subconscious level, maybe even a primitive biological level there is a little aversion taking place in your attitude towards brocolli that equates with (a small) fear? Also, granting that you may indeed like the architecture of roller coasters, isn't the reason why you are afraid of them, whatever it may be, something you dislike? It may just be a matter of degree, but I think both attitudes can coexist, or do you disagree? ______________ -- 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, 27 Jan 1997 17:49:55 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 858 Message-ID: <970127173156_748941262@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-26 23:27:06 EST, you write: << To Rukmini's credit, there were two activities in which she did some good. The first was reviving the traditional Indian Dance which was one time practiced only by Temple Women. She was the first one to from the elite Indian Class to take up the dance. She has built a University for Dance and Music and Arts and is very famous in India today. Today Indian Dance is art of choice of everybody in India and even for most of the Indians in the USA. She was also very active in animal welfare movement in India and was responsible for many legislative changes as she was a member of the upper chamber of the Parliament. >> At one point in her career, Rukmini was asked to be President of India. I forgot which Prime Minister made the request. She declined, deferring to her theosophical work and her activity in her school of classical dance. I don't feel that she would have been considered for the presidency of India if she was an "air head" as one critic on this list chose to characterize her. LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:36:55 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: [R] Re: Boston Lodge Litigation Message-ID: <32ED6647.32A7@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > After I posted the above message, I have not seen a single member > response for having seen any detailed info received by any Lodge. The only > conclusion that can be reached is Wheaton chose not to send any information > to any lodge other than NY Lodge. ...and the scientist wrote, "When you cut off all 4 legs, the frog becomes deaf". Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:13:50 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: HBP and Olcott Message-ID: <32ED6EEE.1761@sprynet.com> Titus Roth wrote: > > K. Paul Johnson wrote, > > [snip] > > > For example, HPB and Olcott hated each other after 1885 and > > apparently never really communicated openly about it; spewed > > their feelings about to others but pretended it was all about > > things that could be grasped by the mind. > > Interesting. Where is this documented? The details are in the book, THE WHITE BUDDHIST, but it is clear in Olcott's letters and diary entries. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:16:33 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <32ED6F91.5431@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > I think JHE wants to know *by whom* the lodges were told, and in what > words. So do I and others. You appear to be saying that you have this > information, but also unwilling to make it available to the list. > > Maybe I am reading this wrongly, in which case I apologise, but it is > quite confusing on the surface. I got it from Michael Gomes, who said he got it from one of the regular publications out of Adyar. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:55:30 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 858 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128045530.00702258@mail.eden.com> At 08:50 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-01-26 23:27:06 EST, you write: > ><< To Rukmini's credit, there were two activities in which she did some good. > The first was reviving the traditional Indian Dance which was one time > practiced only by Temple Women. She was the first one to from the elite > Indian Class to take up the dance. She has built a University for Dance and > Music and Arts and is very famous in India today. Today Indian Dance is art > of choice of everybody in India and even for most of the Indians in the USA. > She was also very active in animal welfare movement in India and was > responsible for many legislative changes as she was a member of the upper > chamber of the Parliament. > >> > >At one point in her career, Rukmini was asked to be President of India. I >forgot which Prime Minister made the request. She declined, deferring to her >theosophical work and her activity in her school of classical dance. I don't >feel that she would have been considered for the presidency of India if she >was an "air head" as one critic on this list chose to characterize her. > >LunarPitri > Thanks for bringing this up. She was held in very high esteem all over India and is a household name even today several years after she died. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:57:55 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Arundale (whoops) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128045755.007019a0@mail.eden.com> I just got the header only. Can you repost your msg. ...doss At 08:44 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:58:54 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Arundale Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128045854.006a72b0@mail.eden.com> Again this is the second msg just header. Pl repost. ...doss At 08:43 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:00:09 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Sub Listening-L problems Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128050009.006f41dc@mail.eden.com> John I just received the header only. No body. Pl repost. ..doss At 08:38 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:01:06 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: listening-l mail list Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128050106.006f4208@mail.eden.com> Tom: I just got your msg, just header only. Pl repost. ..doss At 08:33 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:02:10 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128050210.007081e0@mail.eden.com> Ann: I just got your msg, just the header only. Please re-post. ..doss At 08:43 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:05:20 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Boston Lodge Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128050520.00705c30@mail.eden.com> Bart: I just received the header only, no body. Pl re-post your msg. ..doss At 10:24 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:06:33 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: condition of TS 1925 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128050633.006ff7c4@mail.eden.com> Hi, I just received your msg header only, no body. Pl re-post your msg. ..doss At 08:39 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:07:53 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Subject: RE: Simple Language -to Einar Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128050753.0070c660@mail.eden.com> Hi, I just received your msg hdr only. Pl repost. ..doss At 08:48 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 23:10:03 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128051003.0071f1bc@mail.eden.com> Ann: Again this is another msg I received only the header. Pl re-post. ..doss At 08:42 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:13:53 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Arundale (whoops) Message-ID: <970128011352_1478321814@emout18.mail.aol.com> Doss, I'm having the same problem. If I can remember it, because I never save those things, it basically said that Arundale probably got hit somewhat lower than his head, or something like that when he was sent to Australia. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:15:50 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: condition of TS 1925 Message-ID: <970128011548_1013601816@emout11.mail.aol.com> Doss, Can't repost a message that isn't saved and I don't save them. So whatever I said, if it was me that said it, is lost to the ether. The list is doing this a lot. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:20:43 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Simple Language-Lower Fog Index Message-ID: Ann: >Eldon: >> It's not the TS that needs salvation, it's orphan humanity that >> has the big problem. >This statement gives me the shivers because it smacks of >arrogance. And it also prevents TSA from honestly looking >at itself and seeing where the problems really exist in it's >own presentation to the public. >Maybe you didn't intend to mean it that way, but I >have heard it before in articles in TSA publications. "All we have >to do is sit tight another 100 years and humanity will FINALLY >catch up to us in consciousness. So let's just take a chair and have >another cup of coffee till it happens." One hundred years later >you may find yourselves in a storefront and barely in business. >Anyone in that orphan humanity, who are really your siblings, will >sense that tone in TSA's approach and run like the blazes in >the opposite direction. >You can't sit in an ivory tower. You have to REACH OUT TO >PEOPLE WITH WARMTH AND FELLOWSHIP AND BE >WILLING TO TAKE RISKS. I've been reading with interest this topic. Whatever the TS is doing, obviously, it's not reaching the masses. I could have gone on the rest of my life not knowing what the word theosophy means, and still be happy. I'm educated, I'm knowledgeable of the creative field, and I'm no stranger to philosophy. I knew about Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and their disciplines, but until recently, I never knew of the Theosophical Society. It wasn't until I borrowed a tape with the big topic COMPASSION by De Purucker in front of it, and casually listened to it while driving, that I started to be drawn to theosophical teachings. His teaching was so loving, clear and simple that I had to find that book on compassion and all the other books by him. I did a massive ordering from Point Loma of all the titles by De Purucker. If it hadn't been for that tape, I think I would have never encountered theosophy. Even that article in Times magazine regarding religion on the internet never mentioned about theosophy. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, and even obscure out of the world beliefs, but theosophy? No. I certainly did not see anything else that let me know the TS existed. Who knows? Maybe we don't need the TS for "orphan humanity" to catch up. With my aura-meter on, my heart warms up to a friendly aura more than a superior aura. As someone who was briefly on this list said, "When you turn off one channel, there are infinite numbers of channel to choose from." Maybe it's time for brother and sister theosophists to join in the Mardi Gras. I think the key is to respond to people with love and kindness instead of arrogance. That is all anyone wants, is to be treated kindly and respectfully. The ad for the Yellow Pages (?) got it right, "Reach out, reach out and touch someone." Speaking of ad, the TS could have an ad during the Super Bowl (BTW, gooooo Packers! I made $5.00). The ad could start with a voice announcing, "The Secret Doctrine in 3 minutes." Then the motormouth guy from the FedEx commercial could stand up from his chair, and read the Secret Doctrine at a very high speed. Then a fade out into the word The Theosophical Society, with a priestess voice saying, "A spirit is a terrible thing to waste." Thoa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:40:47 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Global Spirituality Report - an internet publication Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128064047.0070cfa0@mail.eden.com> Einar:Your message was also recd with just header only. Looks like there is a problem at the list server. Pl repost. I am copying this to John E Mead. ..doss At 08:49 PM 1/27/97 -0500, you wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:43:47 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Arundale (whoops) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128064347.006f9668@mail.eden.com> At 01:16 AM 1/28/97 -0500, you wrote: >Doss, >I'm having the same problem. >If I can remember it, because I never save those things, it basically said >that Arundale probably got hit somewhat lower than his head, or something >like that when he was sent to Australia. > >Chuck the Heretic > I have just sent a msg to JEM. Looks like listserver problem. When you send msgs, don't you have an out box where copies are kept? ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Jan 28 02:17:26 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: BAD header trip Message-ID: <199701280717.CAA09999@envirolink.org> Ok, folks. That was the worst I have seen yet. I had six messages out of 45 that actually had a BODY to them. Zees eez nut Gewd. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 07:13:04 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <3306a69f.28506020@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> M K Ramadoss wrote: >? Doss: Your messages of 1-28-97, at both 1:33 A.M and 1:40 A.M, GMT, in this subject, had no body. Could you re-post? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 07:52:20 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: truth Message-ID: <330aad0b.30149376@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> The Triaist wrote: >liesel f. deutsch writes: >>Tom wrote: >>>There is a significant difference between seeming to be real and being >>>real. >>What is it? How do you tell? >There is no difference. Relativity provides for interrelation. Anything that >you define as real is your own relative viewpoint. Because that viewpoint is >relative, and therefore interrelated with reality, it is real. Taking this literally would mean that you see no difference between perception and reality. I have a perception of participating in the Theos list. Assuming you have the same perception, what would account for our similar perceptions, if not the objective reality of our both participating on the list? Could you choose not to perceive that you are participating in the Theos list? If 100,000 people at a football game were all asked whether or not they perceived a football game, and they all said yes, would you regard that as pure coincidence, if you do not believe there is any reality to the football game? What would the word "mistake" mean, if there is no difference between perception and reality? I define it as perception being different from reality. The Objectivist says that perception and reality are identical, and they are objective. The Subjectivist says that perception and reality are identical, and they are subjective. The Theosophist says that perception and reality are distinct but inseparable from each other, and that perception is the result of the union of subject and object. I take what I have just called the Theosophical position. You, Jerry, and Liesel seem to be taking what I have just called the Subjectivist position. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue Jan 28 05:58:57 1997 From: John Straughn Subject: Re: truth Message-ID: <199701281058.FAA20854@envirolink.org> Tom Robertson writes: >>There is no difference. Relativity provides for interrelation. Anything >>that you define as real is your own relative viewpoint. Because that >>viewpoint is relative, and therefore interrelated with reality, it is real. > >Taking this literally would mean that you see no difference between >perception and reality. When you are taking something literally, are you taking it realisticly or perceptively? You probably perceive that it is real. Your perception would be a real perception. Since your perception would define the objects (or subjects) you perceive, those definitions (your perceptions) would be real until you could prove to yourself, through furthur perceptions, that your former definition was false and unreal. You once said that everything changes, except for what is real, however, you must have some perception which defines what you think is real. If perceptions themselves are not real, and your perception is defining reality, then 1) how could something that constantly changes(perceptions) define something which never changes(reality), or 2) how could something something be real(never-changing) be defined, unarguably, by that which is only perceptive(ever-changing). Your logic at this moment is giving me a wide berth. In order to say that perceptions are unreal while defining and perceiving reality as unchangeable is a paradox. >I have a perception of participating in the Theos list. Assuming you have >the same perception, what would account for our similar perceptions, if not >the objective reality of our both participating on the list? Could you >choose not to perceive that you are participating in the Theos list? The "objective reality" is not the absolute factor in my perception of participating on this list, however, you are correct in saying that it is a factor. Taking your above example, my perception, generally, is that we are, in fact, participating on this list. That is the reality. I get a lot messages with no body. That is also a reality. Perhaps you will agree that these things are real, or perhaps you won't, that is your choice and your perception. But, since it is only your perception, is it unreal? If that is true, how can you perceive and define reality? It is all very contradictory. >If 100,000 people at a football game were all asked whether or not they >perceived a football game, and they all said yes, would you regard that as >pure coincidence, if you do not believe there is any reality to the football >game? I never said anything about objects not being a reality. I said there was no difference between perception and reality, meaning one is just as real as the other. You are defining reality (above) as a consensus. A unified judgement. The only thing you have to remember is that it takes perception to define that reality. >What would the word "mistake" mean, if there is no difference between >perception and reality? I define it as perception being different from >reality. Once again, that definition is defined by your perception. One person may say that it is a mistake to eat meat, while another may say it is a mistake to eat only vegetables. One perceives eating meat as being bad for the body, while the other perceives not eating meat to be bad for the economy. They are both right. Both perceptions are true. But they directly contradict each other. >The Objectivist says that perception and reality are identical, and they are >objective. The Subjectivist says that perception and reality are >identical, and they are subjective. The Theosophist says that perception >and reality are distinct but inseparable from each other, and that >perception is the result of the union of subject and object. I take what I >have just called the Theosophical position. The Theosophist says that perception and reality are distinct AND inseperable from each other, that perception is the result of the union of subject and object, and that reality is the expression of those perceptions. The only distinction between the two is that one cannot exist without the other. i.e. something cannot be expressed if is not perceived, and something cannot perceive without expressing. I take what I have just called the Theosophical position. That is my reality. --- The Triaist From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 07:31:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index (1234) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970128133101.006fcd64@mail.eden.com> Hi Tom: I have reposted two msgs which I hope are the correct ones. The best way to check is to retrieve the postings from listserver. ..doss At 04:35 AM 1/28/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: > >>? > >Doss: > >Your messages of 1-28-97, at both 1:33 A.M and 1:40 A.M, GMT, in this >subject, had no body. Could you re-post? > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:46:23 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Truth and/or Consequences Message-ID: <32f39002.28410450@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Richard Ihle wrote: >However, I must disagree with you on the issue of never exposing your >sexist language (and, by extension, most other qualities which one would >think that the women would find objectionable). The key, in my opinion, is >not to worry so much about your negatives, but just make sure you make a >strong impression on them one way or another. The reason for this is that >it has been my experience that women tend to see men of the semi-descript >middle ground as merely consolation prizes. This makes sense. I've always felt that my total failure in this area is not due to any particularly repellent qualities (since I've gotten to be pretty good at hiding all of them), but that I am just too damn boring. > I think that it is unlikely that a man who does not, at the core of himself, >actually believe that women are far greater prizes than he could ever be will >be very successful. If this is true, then who succeeds with women is deterministic, since no one can control such core beliefs. If the woman really is such a superior being, she will eventually realize it herself, and the relationship will be doomed. He will feel obligated to her and she will realize that she could do better. The only stable relationship is between equals. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 04:29:23 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: condition of TS 1925 Message-ID: <33007e65.18208406@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Mika Perala wrote: >? Mika: I received the header to your post with "condition of TS 1925" as the subject, but no body, and would like to read it. Could you re-post it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 04:29:26 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: <33017ed3.18317981@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >? Jerry: I received the headers to your posts with the subjects "Some Responses to Tom" and this one, "Theosophy for the Masses," but no bodies, and would like to read them. I understand others have been having similar problems. Could you re-post them? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 04:29:29 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 858 Message-ID: <33027f87.18498410@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Lmhem wrote: >? Lmhem: I received the header to this post, but no body, and would like to read it. Could you re-post it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:59:42 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: truth Message-ID: <33f3eed4.46717612@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> The Triaist wrote: >Tom Robertson writes: >>The Triaist wrote: >>>There is no difference. Relativity provides for interrelation. Anything >>>that you define as real is your own relative viewpoint. Because that >>>viewpoint is relative, and therefore interrelated with reality, it is real. >>Taking this literally would mean that you see no difference between >>perception and reality. >When you are taking something literally, are you taking it realisticly or >perceptively? You probably perceive that it is real. Perception is a subset of reality. >Your perception would be a real perception. The perception is real, but it is only a perception of reality to a unique degree. >Since your perception would define the objects (or >subjects) you perceive, The objects exist, whether I perceive them or not. Assuming consciousness is universal, there is nothing that is not a subject, but in being perceived, they play the role of objects, not of subjects. >those definitions (your perceptions) would be real >until you could prove to yourself, through furthur perceptions, that your >former definition was false and unreal. A "real perception" could mean at least two different things. In that perceptions exist as objects, they are real, but to the extent that they are inaccurate, they are not. Discoveries of reality do not change reality. If a perception has been discovered to be false, it never was "real," in the sense of being accurate, even though it was always "real," in the sense that it existed. If I imagine unicorns on the moon, that perception is real, but, unless there are unicorns on the moon, it is inaccurate. >You once said that everything changes, except for what is real, however, >you must have some perception which defines what you think is real. The word "reality' is being used in two different senses. One means that which does not change and the other means that which is objective, including both what does not change and what does. I am using its latter sense in saying how I believe it relates to perception. >If perceptions themselves are not real, and your perception is defining >reality, then 1) how could something that constantly changes(perceptions) >define something which never changes(reality), or 2) how could something >something be real(never-changing) be defined, unarguably, by that which is >only perceptive(ever-changing). Perception approximates reality, at best, and uncertainly. >Your logic at this moment is giving me a wide berth. I didn't mean to. I must have slipped. >Taking your above example, my perception, generally, is that we are, >in fact, participating on this list. That is the reality. That is your perception. It might be reality. >I never said anything about objects not being a reality. I said there was no >difference between perception and reality, meaning one is just as real as >the other. Do you mean by this that perceptions exist as objects themselves, and are therefore real, or that perceptions accurately reflect reality, and are therefore real? >You are defining reality (above) as a consensus. A unified judgement. Consensus and consistency are likely indicators of objective reality. >One person may say that it is a mistake to eat meat, while another may say >it is a mistake to eat only vegetables. One perceives eating meat as being >bad for the body, while the other perceives not eating meat to be bad for >the economy. They are both right. They may both be wrong. >Both perceptions are true. But they directly contradict each other. Truth can never contradict itself. There is no necessary incompatibility between eating meat being bad for a human body and its being good for the economy. >The Theosophist says that perception and reality are distinct AND >inseperable from each other, that perception is the result of the union of >subject and object, and that reality is the expression of those perceptions. I infer from this last phrase that you mean that you believe that reality depends on perception to exist. I find that to be contradictory. If there was no objective reality to perceive, independently of perception, perception could not exist. >The only distinction between the two is that one cannot exist without the other. Perception cannot exist without there being both a subject and an object, but if an object cannot exist independently of a subject, there would be nothing to perceive. Perception may define reality in the only way that a subject can, but it does not make reality. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:21:12 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: "The Thought World" Message-ID: <199701281621.AA28719@lafn.org> If anyone knows the source of the WQ Judge quote at the end of this article, please let me know. #################### THE THOUGHT WORLD by H.W. Graves The welfare of Humanity turns upon the evolution of the Thinking Principle. It is here that the springs of action lie. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." All that I am is the result of what I have thought, it is made up of my thought. Hidden behind the veil of physical matter is the subtle machinery of thought--just as real, vital, as scientifically arranged as the machinery of the living body. And the activity of every human brain is as closely related to it as the physical body is related to the surrounding air in which it lives and moves. In this thought-world the real inner man has his proper home, and uses his physical vesture merely as an instrument to contact the physical world in which so many problems have to be solved. The aspect which every man's environment wears to himself depends directly upon the quality of the thoughts which he himself evolves. And as man is part and parcel of Nature, embosomed therein at every moment of his life, it follows that his thinking acts directly and momently upon Nature as surely as it does upon himself. Modern science has demonstrated nothing more clearly than the fact that the atoms of matter are forever bound together by a thousand unseverable ties, reciprocally active, and maintaining a marvelous equilibrium throughout the manifested universe. Not less deeply united is humanity, and the breath of its inner and mental life is this living, all-pervading sea or breath of thought, to which, consciously or not, every human being constantly contributes, for evil or for good. Precisely how thought acts and reacts incessantly on man and on Nature, science has never clearly shown. But Eastern Philosophy long ago solved the problem of mind, and today throws a bright light on the question of human responsibility. "Every thought of man upon being evolved passes into the inner world, and becomes an active entity by associating itself, coalescing as we might term it, with an elemental--that is to say, with one of the semi-intelligent forces of the kingdoms. It survives as an active intelligence--a creature of the mind's begetting--for a longer or shorter period proportionate with the original intensity of the cerebral action which generated it. Thus, a good thought is perpetuated as an active, beneficent power, an evil one as a maleficent demon. And so man is continually peopling his current in space with a world of his own, crowded with the offspring of his fancies, desires, impulses and passions; a current which reacts upon any sensitive or nervous organization which comes in contact with it, in proportion to its dynamic intensity... The adept evolves these shapes consciously; other men throw them off unconsciously." [THE OCCULT WORLD, pp. 131-32; THE MAHATMA LETTERS, Chronological ed. p. 472.] The mind, working on its own plane, generates images, thought- forms. Imagination is literally the creative faculty. Responsive to our thoughts are the Elementals which ensoul the forms so created. An Eastern Sage speaking of the part played by sound and color in the psychic world says: "How could you make yourself understood, command in fact, those semi-intelligent Forces, whose means of communicating with us are not through spoken words, but through sounds and colors, in correlation between the vibrations of the two? For sound, light and color are the main factors in forming those grades of intelligences, those beings of whose very existence you have no conception, nor *are you allowed* to believe in them -- Atheists and Christians, Materialists and Spiritualists, all bringing forward their respective arguments against such a belief -- science objecting stronger than either of these to such a `degrading superstition'." [THE OCCULT WORLD, pp. 147-48; THE MAHATMA LETTERS, C.E., p. 47] Elementals are addressed by colors, and color-words are as intelligible to them as spoken words are to men. The hue of the color depends on the nature of the motive inspiring the generator of the thought-form. If the motive be pure, loving, beneficent in its character, the color produced will summon to the thought-form an Elemental, which will take on the characteristics impressed on the form by the motive, and act along the line thus traced. This Elemental enters into the thought-form, playing to it the part of a soul, and thus an independent entity is made in the astral world, an entity of a beneficent character. If the motive, however, be impure, revengeful, maleficent in its character, the color produced will summon to the thought-form an Elemental which will equally take on the characteristics impressed on the form by the motive, and act along the line thus traced. In this case also the Elemental enters into the thought- form, playing to it the part of a soul, and thus making an independent entity in the astral world, an entity of a maleficent character. For example, an angry thought will cause a flash of red, which is a summons to the Elementals, which sweep in the direction of the summoner, and one of them enters into the thought-form, endowing it with an independent, destructive activity. Men are continually talking in this color-language quite unconsciously, and thus calling round them these swarms of Elementals, who take up their abodes in the various thought-forms provided. Thus it is that a man peoples "his current in space with a world of his own, crowded with the offspring of his fancies, desires, impulses and passions." Angels and demons of our own creating throng round us on every side, makers of weal and woe to others, and to ourselves. The life-period of these thought-forms depends on the energy imparted to them by their human progenitor. Their life may be continually reinforced by repetition; and a thought which is brooded over, acquires great stability of form. So again thought- forms of a similar character are attracted to and mutually strengthen each other, making a form of great energy and intensity. Not only does a man generate and send forth his own thought- forms, but he also serves as a magnet to draw towards himself the thought-forms of others. He may thus attract to himself large reinforcements of energy from outside, and it lies within himself whether these forces that he draws into his own being from the external world shall be of a good or of an evil kind. If one's thoughts are pure and noble, he will attract around him hosts of beneficent entities, and may sometimes wonder whence comes to him power that seems so much beyond his own. Similarly a man of foul and base thoughts attracts to himself hosts of maleficent entities, and this added energy for evil commits crimes that astonish him in the retrospect. William Q. Judge wrote: "Can we, then, be too careful to guard the ground of the mind, to keep close watch over our thoughts? These thoughts are dynamic. Each one as it leaves the mind has a force of its own, proportionate to the intensity with which it was propelled. As the force or work done, of a moving body, is proportionate to the square of its velocity, so we may say that the force of thoughts is to be measured by the square or quadrupled power of their spirituality, so greatly do these finer forces increase by activity. The spiritual force, being impersonal, fluidic, not bound to any constricting center, acts with unimaginable swiftness. A thought, on its departure from the mind, is said to associate itself with an elemental; it is attracted wherever there is a similar vibration, or, let us say, a suitable soil, just as the winged thistle-seed floats off and sows itself in this spot and not in that, in the soil of its natural selection. Thus the man of virtue, by admitting a material or sensual thought into his mind, even though he expel it, sends it forth to swell the evil impulses of the man of vice from whom he imagines himself separated by a wide gulf, and to whom he may have just given a fresh impulse to sin. Many men are like sponges, porous and bibulous, ready to suck up every element of the order prepared by their nature. We all have more or less of this quality: we attract what we love, and we may derive a greater strength from the vitality of thoughts infused from without than from those self-reproduced within us at a time when our nervous vitality is exhausted. It is a solemn thought, this, of our responsibility for the impulse of another. We live in one another, and our widely different deeds have often a common source. The occultist cannot go far upon his way without realizing to what a great extent he is `his brother's keeper.' Our affinities are ourselves, in whatever ground they may live and ripen." Earnestness, said Buddha, is the path of immortality, thoughtlessness the path of death. [UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD, Vol. XIII, Mar. 1899, pp. 660-62.] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:58:54 EST From: uscap9m9@ibmmail.com Subject: keeping our language lucid Message-ID: <199701281558.KAA07026@elvis.vnet.net> Einer: > > I agree that we want to keep our language clear, lucid, and not > > unnecessarily buried in arcane terminology. On the other hand, > > I wouldn't rope off the depths of the ocean and say that there > > should only be wading in the shallow waters. > My experience is that you can "wade" quite profound waters with > people that are new to the subject, if you keep the discussion in > a everyday language, and talk about it from a non-theoretical > platform. Yes, it's possible to share profound insights with people, using a language that they're familiar with. They can take their new insights -- flashes of intuition -- and make sense of them in their own ways. A Christian might use biblical terminology to describe their new understanding of emptiness. A agnostic scientist might use entirely different ideas to explain and understand the same insight. The problem is that western thought may not provide a fertile ground for these seeds to take root. The vocabulary, concepts, logic, and view of life that someone holds is a container for their insights. It's also a *filter*, adding a bias, allowing some insights to take root and others to be excluded and to die away. The theosophical doctrines provide a language and a framework for understanding great insights. The language allows a richer, deeper, more expressive understanding of the ancient wisdom. I'd say that it's as important to teach this *framework* as it is to share some of the insights that we've had along the way. > I have conducted a series of courses for newcomers, which go > through the essential and fundamental principles of Theosophy, > without mentioning theosophy or the traditional technical terms. That's good. By letting people see the richness of ideas and wonders found in Theosophy, you overcome the language barrier. Some people may be turned away because of the terminology and the jargon, the technical language. You help people discover that there's a goldmine behind the theosophical books. > To make it even more difficult, I like to take it from a profound > mystical aspect, which often is quite non-logical or paradoxical > in nature. This is a good approach. What we're trying to impart is ultimately mystical in nature. The emphasis is on *insight* or new faculties of consciousness, which is what the mystical consists of. The use of non-logical and paradoxical techniques in teaching is important. We'd be trying to keep people from crystalizing in their thinking, from getting trapped into ideas that are too rigid. This streaching of the mind keeps it limber and flexible. And in addition to keeping the intellect healthy, there's the higher faculty of symbolic thought, of direct insight which does not rely on logic or rationality. Insights from this higher faculty can be partially *described* in logical terms, but the description is different from the actual experience. The difference is as wide as a clinical description of "being in love" is from the actual life experience. > The trick, I have found, is to relate the whole thing to the > everyday experiences, and take it from a psychological > experiential viewpoint. The point, I think, is to use a common language -- one that the audience knows -- to express the philosophy. Once their interest is aroused, they can learn a more adept language for the mystery teachings -- the theosophical philosophy. And there's a second point here too: whatever we learn needs to come back to our everyday life. The ideas need to take root in our external life. There needs to be both a "reality check" of our thinking with the external world, as well as a "potency check" of the ideas having the power to make things happen in our lives and the world. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:30:58 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: <19970128183317.AAA4261@JerrySchueler> The following is a re-posting as requested by Tom: Doss: >> The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the >> less intelligent, less educated person. ... We won't. We can't. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, people concentrate their time on basic survival first, then safety, and only then will they begin to think about such things as theosophy. Unfortunately, the masses are all pretty much wrapped up on Maslow's lower levels, and don't have much time for such things as theosophy. We may be able to get in a few things, but the masses will never have time to study theosophy or any other philosophy. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:32:58 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Some Responses to Tom Message-ID: <19970128183317.AAB4261@JerrySchueler> The following is a re-posting at Tom's request: Jerry S.: >> I do not >>believe that "objective truth" exists per se, except in a relative >>sense. Tom: >I am not clear what you mean by "except in a relative sense," but this >seems like pure subjectivism, or what some people call the primacy of >consciousness over reality, to me. I infer that you mean that we create >our own reality and that there is no reality but what we perceive. There is no such thing as "pure subjectivism." Subject and object are two sides of a duality, and one can't exist without the other. What I mean is exactly what you say in the last sentence above. Every subjective I has its own objective world or reality around it. We (the monads in this life wave) do create our own reality, and make up the rules of life, and agree to abide by them. Who else? >... It may take some element of faith either way, >but I would consider that to be powerful evidence of an objective football >game. You have obviously not read my Enochian Physics. Objectivity is as real as subjectivity. The only thing to remember is that each subjective I has its own objective Not-I. The fact that a lot of people see the same object is the result of the overlapping of Not-I's. >In the Mahatma letter that Doss recently posted, K. H. talked about how >paranormal powers were just as subject to law as the simplest physical >processes were. When I think of objective reality, it is these universal laws >that I think of first. Yes, and these "laws" are the agreements that we monads made at the beginning of this life wave through Globe D of the Earth Planetary Chain. >His perception would be real, but the pink elephants would not be. You are wrong, Tom. The pink elephants are as real as the computer that I am typing this on. They are not physical, like my computer, but real nonetheless. What is reality, but that which we can experience? Dreams, for example, are very real. The angels that are evoked in magic are very real. Hallucinations are actually objective reality seen by one person and not by others--a part of their Not-I that does not overlap. We all tend to think reality is what is overlapped (i.e., shared experiences). My thesis is that anything the I experiences is real--it has a mayavic (maya in the Buddhist sense) reality. In the sense of maya, everything that we experience is real. In a more absolute sense, nothing that we experience is real. >There is a significant difference between seeming to be real and being >real. The only difference is in our minds. What we believe to be real changes as we go through life. >My perception of the law of karma constantly changes, but I do not believe >it is because the law itself changes. My perception of what happened last >year changes, but that does not mean that what happened last year changes. Your perception is your reality. As your perception changes, so your reality changes. What is real for you may not be real for me because we have difference perceptions. This is the key to overcoming or extinguishing our past karma. The past is only as real as we recall it, and our karma affects us only as long as we allow it to do so. Karma is extinquished to the degree that we recognise the unreality of our past. Thats why all Adepts tell us to focus only on the present. >Perception cannot take place unless there is something objective to >perceive. There is always subject and object in dualism. This business only disappears in nonduality, which few theosophists understand and none have ever written about. However, it is true that our experiences always tend to substantiate our belief system. Whenever we experience something that doesn't fit into our belief system, we must either change our belief system (very difficult) or die (the usual case). The occult connection between our subjective self (I) and our objective world (Not-I) is called Fohat, and this mysterious force is the culprit rersponsible for our manifestation in space-time. It connects the polar sides of duality and makes non-duality possible. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:15:19 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Arundale (whoops) Message-ID: <970128141517_1511941783@emout01.mail.aol.com> Doss, The aol system doesn't keep those things for messages sent to the internet. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:20:11 -0500 From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Simple Language - Low Fog Index Message-ID: <970128142010_442846109@emout12.mail.aol.com> DAMMIT!!!!!! THIS GOTTVERDAMNTEN LISTERVER IS DOING IT AGAIN! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:20:49 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 1 of 3) Message-ID: <970128141834_442846107@emout09.mail.aol.com> Ann, I thought of writing a book just about the TS in 1925, entitled "The Year Everyone Went Berserk" but never got around to it. It would be fun reading, except of course for a few of TS officials who wouldn't want to see that stuff in print. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:48:12 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Global Spirituality Report - an internet publication Message-ID: <01BC0D5C.953A27A0@rvik-ppp-111.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0D5C.95434F60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi folks. This is a head with a body (I hope) to replace a head without a body (Astral?) Einar. ----------------------------------------------------------- Dear Theos-L members. I would like to introduce a brand new e-mail publication that might interest some of you. I will just relay some excerpts from its first issue so that you can decide whether you should join. It is free of charge and hopefully a carrier of free thought as well. I Hope that you will like it. Einar. ---------- T H E G L O B A L S P I R I T U A L I T Y R E P O R T Sender: owner-gsr-l@epinet.co.uk Precedence: bulk Jointly published by United Communities of Spirit, http://www.silcom.com/~origin/ucs.html The Isbourne Foundation, http://www.isbourne.org/ Volume 1, No. 1, Monday, January 27, 1997 Inaugural Issue * Welcome to the Global Spirituality Report * Our Cause * Submissions and Subscriptions -----SNIPS----------- WELCOME TO THE GLOBAL SPIRITUALITY REPORT ....... the GSR is not a "discussion forum", in that subscribers cannot post directly to the list. Instead, it is a "moderated mailing list", and only the Editor can post messages. But this doesn't mean we don't want to hear from you. In fact, your participation and involvement is essential to the success and value of this network. .................. Our fundamental concern here is the "global network of light" -- the expanding web of connections and relationships and philosophies and projects that all seem to be working together, across the Internet and in the "real world". We want to find ways to accelerate the growth of this network, and to assist in gathering its resources together, helping to create a "global federation of light", so to speak. ............... Millions of spiritual people, from all kinds of religious and philosophic traditions, have some vision of a spiritual world, of a way our global civilization could become more spiritual, more truly loving, more honest and honorable, more deeply beautiful. There are as many such visions as there are religions, and they tend to overlap and sometimes compete against one another. Our objective is to find ways that these separate groups can learn to work together to achieve their common objectives. To us, it seems obvious that this kind of cooperation empowers the vision of each group. Thus -- whether you are a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Christian or a New Ager or a Wiccan -- if you believe that human beings must learn to love one another, and live within the healing power of divine grace, it seems to us that you are also a member of a larger communion, a kind of "universal church o f all humanity", which accepts all loving and honest people from every religion. ................... The GSR is a brand-new project, and is still somewhat experimental. We are still defining our agenda and mission, and the exact format for our publication. How long should it be? What "departments" should we include? What exactly are we trying to accomplish? ......... Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bahais, Zoroastrians -- and New Agers and esotericists and scholars and members of all religious and spiritual groups -- can exchange their ideas and visions for building a better world through the simple format of our GSR newsletter. ............. SUBMISSIONS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS Many of our GSR subscribers are writers and web developers, or are developing spiritual and religious projects in their home communities. We'd like to hear from you, and know something about your work, what you find exciting, and how you feel we can work together to further our own spiritual growth, and empower the flow of Spirit across the planet. .......... Any submissions sent by "reply" to GSR-L will be relayed to the Editor, who will review them and possibly discuss them with others on the editorial team. For help with your GSR-L subscription, send the command (one line email message with no subject) HELP to MAJORDOMO@epinet.co.uk To subscribe, send the command SUBSCRIBE GSR-L ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0D5C.95434F60 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ig8UAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADAFAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAFHy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEAOQAAAFJFOiBHbG9iYWwgU3Bpcml0dWFsaXR5 IFJlcG9ydCAtIGFuIGludGVybmV0IHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uAJAUAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcBABwAFAAwAAwA AgBDAQEggAMADgAAAM0HAQAcABQAMAAMAAIAQwEBCYABACEAAABENEUzQTMzMTNCNzlEMDExQTEw RDQ0NDU1MzU0MDAwMADLBgEDkAYAsAwAABIAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYA AAAAAEAAOQDAtWWTXA28AR4AcAABAAAAOQAAAFJFOiBHbG9iYWwgU3Bpcml0dWFsaXR5IFJlcG9y dCAtIGFuIGludGVybmV0IHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uAAAAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG8DVyTZTGj4955OxHQ oQ1ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAASAAAAYW5uYXNiQGlzbWVubnQu aXMAAAADAAYQHOHRmgMABxCBDAAAHgAIEAEAAABlAAAASElGT0xLU1RISVNJU0FIRUFEV0lUSEFC T0RZKElIT1BFKVRPUkVQTEFDRUFIRUFEV0lUSE9VVEFCT0RZKEFTVFJBTD8pRUlOQVItLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQAAAAACAQkQAQAAABMLAAAPCwAAOBQAAExaRnXXIo9u/wAKAQ8C FQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcGAAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKDNBEF E1MP32b2NRLMFMV9CoAIzwnZAoAHCoENsQtgbmcxMDMGOQr7F1IyNCBIaYIgAhBsa3MuIAqFFFRo BAAgHhFhIGiQZWFkIAPwdGgeYUEG4GR5IChJHoBvgHBlKSB0byAZkHkLUWNlHmoIYAVAHzZBpRPA cgdAPykKhUULgPUKwC4KhS0kHyUvJj8mtV8KhxwaCqADYBPQYwVARAMeoB3SZW9zLUwgHweABtAE kB1QCotsaTO+Ng3wKE8pUwqFH7B3CGD2bB7AK8BrIMAgMQuAInBVBHB1ILNiIoBuHsBuOQfRZS0A wAMRCoVwdcECYGljYXRpAiAgIMMRgAVAbWlnaAVALvE3BJAHkAVAcwNwIMBvZnwgeQhgI5YtiAMQ AyBqPnUzARmQC2AfgDMzZXh9ILByBTAEIANSHjA2omn/EaAygQQQClAKhTMwMeQzse4gMYADoAWB aQ2wHtAekDcfAASQOPNzIYEuQWpv+wuAI5ZJN6I2wQngM3IRcq5nIMEv4R/SZi4wbB+A+x5wMYBy CIIzcjxCCoUhclUyYmEEIHc1oGwz70j/H+E4qDTzLnMe8B1nIt8rOQgxODAC0WktMTQ+NA3wDNBG AwtVFWFzMf42KRcnL0a6DAEtDStvFDMtSepUHNAjMCBNgkcg8SpQTyBCFLBN4U2CBfDaUC3hUi3h TTBVTkNPUn5ZTYNPME1wTvBOEE8wVK8KhQZgL+AEkDozcHcwEJByLWdzUnBsQCBwiwuAEcAuBaAu dWsKhW5QGZAgsA2wbiCwUhBi1y4wU6YKhUo7MXQ94TEz1zqwCYAfQHkKhVUDABPQ4x7ACFBtbXVX wQiQBCDNM4FTUwAFEHQsHoACQKBwOi8vd1oALgCQimwFoG1TUW0vfgWwOzJQC4AvL1AdUDJwbWxz HYcgwElzBuAIcDAQIH5GCGAv4DGTWXsEAFzELqkFsGcvM/xWBvB1M1HaMVlwTlNwYLJNAiBdcGp5 WXBKAHB1CsAfgDLCN1lwMTk5Ny2GI2A/P8AIcAdAXJE36AqFKiB+VzWgWnEuozohTcAZIGKvY8FZ FGIQK8B0H4BSIHD7GTFkt08IcFgQY3ARsGS3/lMxQDJABBAxsR5RL+FpgR8E9GnyM/wsH0fJU05J PFBTJx9sJ0xNCoVXRVBMQ09NTXBUThBUgkhNcEdMT0JBKlCAU1BJUklUVXJwg3LgUDBSRVBPUlE2 bQqFLnS1ZeRTTzAeEW7TKUAeYSJkBABjNVBp4vUdAXJggCJZcAuAMeQ34P9qoyqiCoU5QXXyZ5Az AXZg/1QxVkJlxVaxQyFjQRPBHrD/d3E783YxBGMxkFbxMHILgP5nCoV68ndhL9ICIHpSXHE+RXZg IDB5E3mUB4FzYT89AB1RTiAhoR8AHhFkb/kHkG4ngCIDkUBACoWBgP2BwncAcIERIEAekQXANtP/ M7J7Qh0AANBZYTOxMREKwL8xoDmgCrAxoy/SC4B2BvD+dhPgCfBnxh4RgFGHQQcxu2W2N+BjILAE ES/SdgdAnwpQM3KBM1MhLhByayOW/3S2i9kKhWhiPbBdYYcyY8F/BaBUkQShOjFC8QQgZfIivmdm RIrFM3IrwDJhIiQBf2XiCoU2QAqwL+B9YUAxYv88gwIgMBApcGn3NZJrAx4A+nBqJHAeABkgMzCV MQeR9y/RMMYDYGopYY8yMhEHQP8DIBGwE+AgIiqgLgGLEJJi/yAwPQA6In5RBQAqII80Y1D/MsFT IYZ1PyePcRmQY8GK8f0uQCJ7MWVAgzc3YC/hg0DvE7AgIgDQILBsfLNl4wnA/1IwHwGKRQqFisV+ VJ4iadH7N5IDoGcxkDoxkmI3IjLh7whhiVGY6R6QbFMBmNJ4xu+b8Z7RdjGPpWZUYXzBMbKvkJdZ cDiCIEBzH/Bhiy/9jG1NNQFp8zOBqDBmxTEgeyoQC1BlWXA205eCmKFk31jDNZFbIQhglN5jPyYi gLd/UWnyWXFhhxAzJHYEAP+m5R5wqzicQ1lwsUOd0TNwt2hxj6R4xmmw0CvAejGU/wWgLjIqoGVz BGCO8as3WXD/teMicC4wH4AZILDQG0C2xf8f0DAQE8AKhT00dfAigAJg/6whteMNsCBxH4AqoGNw MaD/PbF7MSnxjvEKwCDBBCADgf810S9QHxCw1B5Ra0Y6Irvk/611r/KhIx6QemFRwSAit6D7BJAL YHA9IzMyMaAHglpx/x/wE9C4xqIwC4AzAbhxPSH/KUA6MUCNaGJmUJbStFCPBP+dazICOiERsJex CrGewp9B/nWUwTlCnpAKwDHRIECK8v8/JpkFnhSVsbBROiE3cMHS7wRgpwHFNoCyVCBANVB70/uX wljBYrDQrdIx8j8nHhH/rOKS1B/hprUT4GeQQEARoP9l47DYHqC84cgDu3Ot4W7X/zn6vAMF0DVQ K8A3AAWxHnA5gPBkZB4BwyHVUkNovwUQE8AHMKcB1VIHwkE9AP8+kbkRcNYxcDlCkTEGkDjz/yqg K8DK9DIR0uADgiqgfWG/vFE1Usi3t5EzYcNYLLjJ/yvAsFEe4neTuEGcAZJi0LP/M3J2YLexnyIg oc0pIDHOJfczorjGu9JsOIEecCp0sTR/C2A88ct0WGFdsh5wz1Yi/1hhwJGAcI4x0uCjYJ+RHQD/ uMY1EdqDZzF3YTnwMXAfEf+JQTaSl4K3lLkmMvKr1DbE/8rxYjAKhb7GKuhsXylii9/fjLhvb0zV dVgvlS0wEpal/35UHhHWsZeSM0E58DIRkgH/BnGN5Jyj4ln0ZA2xC4CSYv+FYoCBXWE9I2m1v1c2 MYUB/3cCAMD6Q7MiMM87UE2AQZC/B+AZIJJxOrV78SqgP5yx3zICdlDHglvAh0FzkRA6tfuCVwuA YwpADbD95voDPeL3jvFAQK9heZi0nkLB8Vay//3hjF4KhdZ3sAHVlrAB1NR9sAFKMCCwARzgL+DN AkKuYRGAF6BZcFrX8G9AEP8icAVikSKWCNdmaiSjITLB/4XhBiHA9BFwHSARkfikKoT/sTM1Ea17 OBarR8gFkTHY0v82Qc5gG0DLFjmxQBGJo70l//rSVOAVoJJT2CYqoF4AOkH/nEMx4cgRMmCI1MGQ 6xP6dP8zgYVidYIwEdTwE+Ooj4yaAFNVQk1JU1NJRE9OTtBBTkQZUlOyQ3LQUFQZ0mRMTbyC/xZJ eBkBpFlBCmaSovdwhxD/roDQAbAB1/I+8IJ2HySSYv+rOJPVraWWp96Ey2E9cGCR7+SlWJIXlmVA Jy5Yg8t+VP5rdfAwMMFD3nHqEVzBOOP/FCOg8fUD4iidgzZBWIG30v89NDAwOQKmcDWgAeLY0pBD /8n6u0CFwMpChWJSMQ6Pn0T3flTQlWXjZq6A/LBY55mK7/CRUyIXrzNmQbyTaaiIMr9XEZvSuqGR EKgBdYEtTfD3QnOYQZQSeVbxZcV/RN02/+igySFCgj7wsNDzMdzxrIH/lQKZwXhwPeF2ZTrU3kLc cP/c8ljB3pORln9TiHN7oFqQ/2RMXTAj0aRhPMSFUzc0eBW/avOnscATXHHLkn5yKMNC/31R+eF9 IvAVgEU8xHXweAI9ltIpB1BxUE7wqAFNQepKc6BEcYBPUuvMs3gX9902Qq8aZUJyETdCZExrXsnw UGRc++AzNnAx7Y8VcJl98BAAUHAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzDgetOHWw28AUAACDDAtWWT XA28AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAgtQ= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0D5C.95434F60-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:10:12 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 862 Message-ID: <970128161011_1047264425@emout01.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-28 11:08:36 EST, you write: << Lmhem wrote: >? Lmhem: I received the header to this post, but no body, and would like to read it. Could you re-post it? ------------------------------ >> I don't remember what it was I posted. Sorry. Probably not all that important. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:53:05 -0500 From: Joseph K PricE <74024.3352@compuserve.com> Subject: The Ocean of Light Thought Experiment Message-ID: <199701281653_MC2-1063-A9D7@compuserve.com> Message text written by INTERNET:jansheph@connect.reach.net >A Scientific Thought Experiment: Awareness of the Ocean of Light ======================= (1) Go outdoors under the night sky - preferably away from the city lights - and observe the stars. (2) Select any one star upon which to focus your attention. (3) Observe and then determine the nature of this star_light_energy and you will have to agree that: (a) It is much like an incredibly high-speed river of light, (b) It would appear to be continuously flowing. (4) Move the location of your eye_socket and repeat (3). (5) It would be apparent that this hight_speed river of star_light is existent in this changed location also. (6) By a process of mathematical integration, or a simple process of imagination, it may be easily determined that this observation (3) is repeatable at *ALL POINTS* in the known cosmos, and that what we perceive as a continuous stream of star_light is actually a spherical stream with the center based on its source - that specific star. (7) Thus through and at all points in the cosmos there exists a high speed continuous and river_like flux of star_light from this one litlle old star. (8) Multiple this observation by the existence of a billion billion suns (9) Multiple the resultant again by a factor representative of the amount of energy we perceive with our eyes (ie: the frequencies of the 'visible' EMR spectrum) compared to the energy being spherically transmitted at all frequencies of the EMR spectrum. (10) Rather than the classical vacuous spaces of interplanetary, interstellar or intergallactic realms, in fact the cosmos is filled by an ocean of light (EMR) fed by the tributary streams of the stars and their galactic hubs. (11) This 'field of pure energy' is the substrate of the cosmos and is easily seen to resemble an ocean which continuously breaks upon the shores of our remote terrestrial island. (12) Deny this if you are able - commentary welcomed. Re-post this experiment to other venues if you see fit. Both the educated and the uneducated alike may profit. Pete Brown --------------------------------------------- Mountain Man Graphics, Australia Publications of Peace & Of Great Souls http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/ --------------------------------------------- Keith: This experiment is interesting to me because it points up the dependence of our sensing space and time from a point -- the point of the current isolated ego. The universe is probably an ocean of energy. mind and spirit i.e light in extension, but our current level of evolution of our humanity creates a model of the universe that is an illusion to other more evolved entitites that may be able to see the other dimensions of the universe from a higher perspective These beings may be called angels, masters, etc. The fact that we can imagine there perspective through philosophical and imaginitive speculation gives us hope that we are progressing toward their perspective. Thanks for the post Pete From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:54:35 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: truth Message-ID: <199701282208.RAA25763@ultra1.dreamscape.com> I asked a Theosophical authority about these 2 points of view, and the answer was that each view has its place and its uses. Also something like that we accept as objective truth that the earth revolves around the sun, but that may possibly depend upon the point in the universe from which one is observing this. Also we did an experiment in Experimental Psych. We wrote down a paragraph about an event. We read what we'd written to somebody in the dorm. They in turn wrote down what they had heard. Then we read what this person had written down, read it to a third person, who then again wrote down what they'd heard. The assignment was to do that with 10 people. The last story didn't even vaguely resemble the first one. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:06:33 -0500 From: liesel@dreamscape.com (liesel f. deutsch) Subject: women Message-ID: <199701282220.RAA29922@ultra1.dreamscape.com> A word about women. They're all different, and what appeals to one woman isn't necessarily the same thing than what appeals to the next one. So it stands to reason that whatever you are like, there are some women you appeal to. I think the best way to handle the situation, if you can, is just to be yourselves, and not try to impress anyone. That's why I think it works better to try to meet someone compatible at an activity like a drama club or a ping pong tournament, rather than at a singles bar, where everyone is out to compete with everyone else. You don't have to compete with anybody, nor try to impress. That comes across as phoney. Just relax, & partake of the activity. Liesel From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:13:37 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Re: condition of TS 1925 Message-ID: <9701282313.AA00081@toto.csustan.edu> M.K. Ramadoss wrote: > It took me a very long time to find out some of the things that > took place in 1925. Usually if you ask someone in TS > (especially anyone who was/is part of the administration) about > these matters, either you will not get a response or you will > be told what does it matter to *you*. JHE In the beginning, I didn't have to go to the history books. In the early 60s when I joined the TS, I spent a lot of time around Krotona when the people who experienced those years were still alive. In those days, tongues were a lot looser and one would hear all of the stories whether you asked or not. But times have changed. Most of those people are dead, but a few who survived the Arundale and Jinarajadasa years are still around--and some of them are the real decision makers behind the TS--not the Board or the Presidency. As for your question: you probably got that answer either because they were embarrassed to tell you the truth; or because he knew that most people would be embarrassed to be associated with an organization that once openly promoted these beliefs; or both reasons. Whatever the reason, the old members are more sensitive about ridicule than they used to be. Besides, I'm sure that your friend did not want to be the one to tell you that the Emperor has no clothes. Those who have tried to tell the membership, like Ernest Wood, F.T. Brooks and T.H. Martyn were marginalized or pushed out of the Society. I think it is important for members who are dedicated to the *original ideals* of this organization to be aware of its history. Once they are aware, they need to realize that the beliefs and ideals of 1925 still form the hidden rationale for the policies upon which the TS operates today. That is why the TS had been stuck for the last sixty years. I believe that when (or if) this information ever becomes general knowledge to the membership, there might be some hope for the organization. The "lie" hidden in your friend's response is the implication that this history should not matter to you. As a member of the TS, you are entitled to know the beliefs (and the origin of those beliefs) of the people who control the TS when those beliefs govern their policies. If anyone believes I am wrong about this, please challenge me. ------------------------------------------ |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, 29 Jan 1997 00:29:44 +0100 From: "Martin Euser" Subject: Repost of re: simple language - to Einar Message-ID: <199701282331.AAA14723@venus.euro.net> (evidently my posting didn't make it to theos-l - Einar brought this to my attention) So, let's give it another try :) Einar wrote: >My experience is that you can "wade" quite profound waters with people = that are new to the subject, if you keep the discussion in a everyday = language, and talk about it from a non-theoretical platform. I have conducted a series of courses for newcomers, which go through the = essential and fundamental principles of Theosophy, without mentioning = theosophy or the traditional technical terms. The trick, I have found, is to relate the whole thing to the everyday = experiences, and take it from a psychological experiential viewpoint. = Ad you have to make it practical and interesting, or no one will listen. Einar: could you give us one or two examples to illustrate your approach a bit more? Martin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html See my latest contribution about modernization of theosophy at:http://www.eu.spiritweb.org/Spirit/modern-theosophy-euser.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:02:58 +0100 From: "Martin Euser" Subject: correction on URL for new article Message-ID: <199701282359.AAA20631@venus.euro.net> Hi, I discovered that I got the wrong URL for my latest article on theosophy. Here are two URLs that should work: http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/modern-theosophy-euser.html http://www.eu.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/modern-theosophy-euser.html The URL in my signature is ok. It will lead you to the Theosophy page on spiritweb. Martin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- http://www.spiritweb.org/Spirit/Theosophy/Overview.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:27:27 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Come the Revolution ... Message-ID: In message <199701271345.IAA04259@newman.concentric.net>, "Ann E. Bermingham" writes > Maybe you didn't intend to mean it that way, but I >have heard it before in articles in TSA publications. "All we have >to do is sit tight another 100 years and humanity will FINALLY >catch up to us in consciousness. So let's just take a chair and have >another cup of coffee till it happens." A true story: Around 1959 in London I got to talking with a London "bag lady" known around the Charing Cross area as "The Countess." She was Russian, and had been in St. Petersburg (later Leningrad, now St. Pete again) during the days of the revolution. She had been in a first floor room with two of the leading communist party intellectuals, who were playing chess (as they do). Outside there was mayhem, revolution, batticades, and pitched battles. The rifles of the two men were propped against a window sill. "Why aren't you rushing out to fight with the comrades?" she asked. "We have to finish our game. We are intellectuals who will be needed to guide the people into the new age." (Or words to that effect). So the "Countess" picked up one of the rifles and went out into the street ... For this she was (later) regarded with extreme disfavor (perhaps for showing up the men) and fled Russia to seek asylum in England. 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, 29 Jan 1997 01:47:28 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: No body E-mails from Vnet Message-ID: Received from listproc@vnet.net ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Several of you have asked about E-mails with no body sent by both the listproc and from private accounts here at Vnet. One of the machines which processes mail sent to other systems on the net had a full hard-drive. The problem has been corrected and a method for preventing this from happening again is in place. 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, 29 Jan 1997 01:58:32 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: keeping our language lucid Message-ID: <01BC0D87.FEA67880@rvik-ppp-218.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0D87.FEB74160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi there all of you. I would like to specially thank you Eldon for your insight on this subject. I can hear that you know the feeling of connecting with a group of real enthusiastic spiritual listeners. Eldon: Yes, it's possible to share profound insights with people, using a language that they're familiar with. They can take their new insights -- flashes of intuition -- and make sense of them in their own ways. One thing I have experienced talking to "newbies" about spirituality and the Theosophical World-view is, that they really listen, that is if you can manage to touch a core in their own life's experience. On the other hand I find it often most difficult to get anywhere near the OLD, all-knowing THEOSOPHISTS, that have figured it all out, and only listen to you through or with their own ideas. For those you HAVE to use the jargon technical terms, and preferably quote volumes and pages, to get their attention - but there is still no real contact or communion there. So, I like to try to make my theosophical guidance as unconventional and simple as possible. I rather use Ideas from the old scriptures, like Tao te Ching, The Prophet, Light on the Path, etc., anything simple and profound, but I don't like to quote them directly. Eldon: A Christian might use biblical terminology to describe their new understanding of emptiness. A agnostic scientist might use entirely different ideas to explain and understand the same insight. A Christian might use biblical terminology to describe their new understanding of emptiness. A agnostic scientist might use entirely different ideas to explain and understand the same insight One thing I like to do is to take extracts from the Sermon on the Mount and even the Lord's Prayer, and explain and discuss those from the Theosophical World-view. Many of the newcomers have been probing around in the New-Age circles searching for some meaning to life, and you can with success get to them through the terms and ideas that are common there. But you have to straighten out the most hideous misinterpretations and far reaching spiritual errors, that circle in those waters, WITHOUT ever condemning any of them. You just give your explanation and interpretation as you see it. Eldon: The problem is that western thought may not provide a fertile ground for these seeds to take root. The vocabulary, concepts, logic, and view of life that someone holds is a container for their insights. It's also a *filter*, adding a bias, allowing some insights to take root and others to be excluded and to die away. Exactly, but you can even bypass such filters if you surprise them with something, a new point of view, that is totally transcending their theories. I use the "Oneness", the unity of all life, taken from all possible aspects, mystically, environmentally, psychologically, scientifically, to make a basis for what I go into. I interlink unity with other subjects such as karma, reincarnation, insight, relations, prophesy, the path, and most importantly, all that goes on in our psyche. And I use the ideas of Krishnamurti, Rohit Metha, Carl Jung, Dr. Bohm, Fritjof Kapra and the "horrendous" Ken Wilber, which by the way, opened a big hole in the clouds for me personally. Eldon: The theosophical doctrines provide a language and a framework for understanding great insights. The language allows a richer, deeper, more expressive understanding of the ancient wisdom. I'd say that it's as important to teach this *framework* as it is to share some of the insights that we've had along the way. Of course it's almost impossible to convey anything profoundly spiritual without using some technical terms, Sanskrit or otherwise. More importantly you have also to take many common terms like love, emotions, feelings, etc. and "rethink" and "redefine" their meaning in the light of each subject. Often one has to bypass such jargon terms, that don't really mean anything to most people, and rephrase them in a different language. I suspect, for instance, that the term Karma has a "frozen and dead" meaning for most long term Theosophists! It has become a "jargon"- term, which has no LIVING meaning in our life. We know all about it, but we don't have the clue how to use it, moment by moment in our everyday life! We are experts in arguing about its "real meaning", but it's all theoretical "head"-learning and very little "heart"-knowledge. Eldon:... By letting people see the richness of ideas and wonders found in Theosophy, you overcome the language barrier. Some people may be turned away because of the terminology and the jargon, the technical language. You help people discover that there's a goldmine behind the theosophical books. Yes, that is exactly the point. You have also to promote discussion, so that you can learn from them. You have to make a common ground, or you won't get anywhere. Einar before: > To make it even more difficult, I like to take it from a profound > mystical aspect, which often is quite non-logical or paradoxical > in nature. Eldon: This is a good approach. What we're trying to impart is ultimately mystical in nature. The emphasis is on *insight* or new faculties of consciousness, which is what the mystical consists of. >The use of non-logical and paradoxical techniques in teaching is important. We'd be trying to keep people from crystalizing in their thinking, from getting trapped into ideas that are too rigid. This stretching of the mind keeps it limber and flexible. And we have to keep it that way ourselves all our life, which is a very tricky business. Eldon: And in addition to keeping the intellect healthy, there's the higher faculty of symbolic thought, of direct insight which does not rely on logic or rationality. >Insights from this higher faculty can be partially *described* in logical terms, but the description is different from the actual experience. The difference is as wide as a clinical description of "being in love" is from the actual life experience. This is just as spoken from my heart. This is maybe the most important aspect in our life and especially in our instructions and communications to others. My spiritual mentor and former GS in Iceland, who was an expert lecturer, taught me that one should never propagate a too rigid or too logical system, always keeping some open doors to the big questions and mysteries of life. He even advised to tear apart every main statement one would put forward, at the end of a talk or discussion, turning the whole thing upside-down, and leaving the listener hanging in the air - totally free from your thoughts. Eldon: The point, I think, is to use a common language -- one that the audience knows -- to express the philosophy. Once their interest is aroused, they can learn a more adept language for the mystery teachings -- the theosophical philosophy. >And there's a second point here too: whatever we learn needs to come back to our everyday life. The ideas need to take root in our external life. There needs to be both a "reality check" of our thinking with the external world, as well as a "potency check" of the ideas having the power to make things happen in our lives and the world. -- Eldon I take my hat off for that! Love and light Einar. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:36:54 -0800 From: am455@lafn.org (Nicholas Weeks) Subject: Source of Thought World quote Message-ID: <199701281636.AA05025@lafn.org> Thanks to Gail! It turns out to be by "Jasper Niemand" ie Julia Keightley, not by Judge. See LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME, pp. 16-17 (ULT ed) or pp. 21-22 (TUP ed.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:38:50 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Some Responses to Tom Message-ID: <32f7907e.10542743@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >Every subjective I has its own objective world or reality around it. >We (the monads in this life wave) do create our own reality, and make >up the rules of life, and agree to abide by them. Who else? If I jump off the Grand Canyon, I do not decide that I will fall. The law of gravity exists independently of anything I can do and regardless of whether or not I am aware of it. If I habitually lie to people, there is nothing I can do about the fact that they will not trust me as much. That tendency exists whether I am aware of it or not. I did not create it. >The pink elephants are as real as >the computer that I am typing this on. They are not physical, like >my computer, but real nonetheless. The perception of them is real. They are not. >The angels that are evoked in magic are very real. If they are real, they would be real whether anyone perceived them or not. >Hallucinations are actually objective reality seen by one person and not by >others--a part of their Not-I that does not overlap. If an hallucination is real, the term "mistaken perception" has no meaning. If I thought that there was no such thing as the Theosophical Society, I would be just as truthful as someone else who thought there was. The word "truth" would be meaningless. >My thesis is that anything >the I experiences is real--it has a mayavic (maya in the Buddhist >sense) reality. In the sense of maya, everything that we experience >is real. It exists as a perception, but not necessarily as reality. >What we believe to be real changes as we go through life. I agree. Perception changes. But reality does not necessarily conform to those changes. >>My perception of the law of karma constantly changes, but I do not believe >>it is because the law itself changes. My perception of what happened last >>year changes, but that does not mean that what happened last year >>changes. > Your perception is your reality. As your perception changes, >so your reality changes. I find the idea that the law of karma changes as my perception of it changes to be very far-fetched. That would mean that there is no objective law of karma. I believe there is. >What is real for you may not be real for me >because we have difference perceptions. If the law of karma is different for you than it is for me, then it is a non-existent figment of our imagination. Why wouldn't the law of gravity work the same way? Maybe if I do not believe in it, it does not exist. >The past is only as real as we recall it, >and our karma affects us only as long as we allow it to do so. I infer that you mean that we can escape the consequences of our actions simply by choosing to do so. I disagree. >all Adepts tell us to focus only on the present. Do they mean to neither plan for the future nor learn from the past? > There is always subject and object in dualism. This business >only disappears in nonduality Does this have something to do with recognizing the connection, if not the identity, between subject and object? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 03:25:28 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Some Responses to Tom Message-ID: <32f7b84b.20731606@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry Schueler wrote: >each subjective I has its own objective Not-I. The fact that a lot of people >see the same object is the result of the overlapping of Not-I's. I am not clear what you mean by this. To call similar perceptions of different people coincidence seems absurd, so I consider it likely that you mean something different than that. Is "overlapping of Not-I's" different from objective reality? I can see how perceptions of different subjects overlap due to their both perceiving the same reality. >these "laws" are the agreements that we monads made >at the beginning of this life wave through Globe D of the Earth Planetary >Chain. Was this agreement made consciously? Are you saying that you believe that the laws of, say, karma and gravity could have been different if we had decided to make them different? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:49:55 -0500 (EST) From: RIhle@aol.com Subject: New Advice on Women Message-ID: <970128224856_1145122069@emout14.mail.aol.com> Richard Ihle writes--> The key, in my opinion, is not to worry so much about your negatives, but just make sure you make a strong impression on them one way or another. The reason for this is that it has been my experience that women tend to see men of the semi-descript middle ground as merely consolation prizes. Tom Robertson writes--> This makes sense. I've always felt that my total failure in this area is not due to any particularly repellent qualities (since I've gotten to be pretty good at hiding all of them), but that I am just too damn boring. RI--> 1. I don't suppose it's so bad to proclaim yourself a "total failure," since a certain percentage of women are always looking for someone other than themselves to improve. There might be one or two right on this list who have reinstated you as a "possible" just because of your forthrightness in this regard (Liesel, however, probably didn't buy it . . .). 2. If I had to do it over again, though, I would probably ~only~ be involved with women who had already long resigned themselves to taking "consolation-prize men." Whatever the male type an uncompromising woman is attracted to, it is undoubtedly the case that she will sooner or later discover that you are not the highest example of her preferred type; thus she will become dissatisfied. In short, if you weren't a consolation prize to begin with, it is only a matter of time before you will be. Indeed, there may only be the slightest hope for women who insist on keeping alive their highest dreams regarding men. On the other hand, an already fully resigned woman can always be pleased and appreciative when you don't fall quite so short as she initially thought you would. (The foregoing may be a valid insight, or it could be just a jaundiced view lingering in the aftermath of my first serious girlfriend, Ms Georgia ______, a half-Greek, half-American-Indian beauty who became "Miss Univac," won some regional title in the Miss America Contest, and then left me for an airline pilot and then later him for a top executive with Wang Industries.) 3. One of the worst methods, in my opinion, for "making a strong impression" on a woman may be to try to impress her with your skill in dispassionate argumentation and/or your superiority of cognitive process. My experience is that many women seem to regard any man's preoccupation with logic, reasoned disputation etc. as almost an impoverished way of experiencing the world--i.e., something akin to stripping off all the leaves, blossoms, and fruit of a cherry tree just to fully apprehend the bare pattern of its branches. Perhaps some women may even regard this as a display of "weaponry" which is very likely to be turned against them someday. High IQ, knowing a lot of interesting things, wittiness, clever conversational skills etc. fall into a different category, of course. And, naturally, there are exceptions: Immanual Kant was married, wasn't he? 4. Anyway, one of the better methods to impress yourself upon a woman is still probably just to look directly into her eyes and smile at her. 5. You seem right on target when you identify being "just too damn boring" as the thing a man must overcome at all costs. 6. However, I will have to do some more thinking about your statement, "The only stable relationship is between equals." It seems to me that people wax and wane. Things happen in life. There is not only growth and improvement but also sickness and decline. What started out as equal may not always be equal. If you advance beyond a woman in knowledge, spirituality, or Self-awareness, will you leave her? If you become afflicted with Alzheimer's, will she leave you? I'll do more thinking about it, but I'll tell you right now . . . equal or unequal, theoretically stable or unstable, I'm not getting rid of my dog. . . From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:56:15 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: New Advice on Women Message-ID: <970129011523_1421052897@emout05.mail.aol.com> Follow Nietzsche's advice and to hell with everything else. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 07:22:42 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L partial digest 864 Message-ID: <199701291322.IAA19468@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: theos-l@vnet.net > > Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:13:37 -0800 > From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins > > I think it is important for members who are dedicated to the > *original ideals* of this organization to be aware of its > history. Once they are aware, they need to realize that the > beliefs and ideals of 1925 still form the hidden rationale for > the policies upon which the TS operates today. That is why the > TS had been stuck for the last sixty years. . . > The same holds true for the LCC. They still cling to the glory years of CWL and have extreme difficulty in changing anything that he set down way back then. Also, the ruling bishops are over 65, who having lived with things the way they are for so long, can't even imagine it being any other way. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:22:42 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Gurus - K's Discussion Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970129142242.00689058@mail.eden.com> With the New Age fad, Gurus are in great demand. The average newbee looks to a Guru more like a spiritual consultant. Here is a discussion that took place long time ago and in it K discusses the issue of Guru. Hope some of you will find it interesting. MKR ===================================================== GURUS Question: Why should we not follow gurus, who teach the method of independent thinking? Krishnamurti: I know I have discussed with so many people throughout the world this idea of following a guru, a teacher, a master. I am not dogmatic. I know the consequences of all that I am saying. I have been through that - following systems, gurus, and all that myself, and only when I freed my mind from all sense of gurus, conformities, and systems, only then was there a living reality, not until then. It is only when through understanding you completely free yourself from all conformity, will you know that living reality, which cannot be explained, which is incommunicable, which cannot be found through any path or system. This is not rhetoric. I shall explain to you why. To follow a guru is destructive. Please let me add here, I know almost all of you, a vast majority of you, are seeking a guru. Most of you have gurus. So you are here to find out what I think and know. If you think you are going to realize that Godhead of understanding, please go ahead. I have nothing to say, but the moment you come to me and ask me, "Is a guru necessary for understanding?" then I say, "No." On the contrary it is destructive. It is not just an idea of mine. This is not an intellectual thing-it is a living reality. Until you feel these things, words have no meaning. You can attend hundreds of meetings and even then you will still remain slavish to a guru. Do you know what creates conflict, both in the world of spirituality and in the world of action? Take an example and then you will see. If I know the right value of money, then money loses its attractiveness, its glory, its potential power. As most of us want power, comfort, possession, authority, we run after money. Now, so long as there are false values, there must be conflict, and no guru, no system, no method except your own clarity, your perception, is ever going to free your mind from false values. You want a house, you want power. It is no good going to a guru, for example, and saying, "Please teach me how to find out right values." You go to a guru and ask him to teach you spiritual things and yet continue with your daily mundane activities, your daily acquisitions. That is, spiritually you live in a cloud with your ideas and so on, and in this world of action, you exploit others for your own security. Naturally, there is a split, there is a division in your life. No guru can bring about right harmony of living except your own perspective of right values. Now, to find out right values, you cannot say, "Please teach me." You cannot ask the way to find right values. Right values depend on countries, climate, position, and so on, depending upon the individual. You cannot lay down one eternal law. So to discover right values is not to comply with a system but to find out what prevents your clarity of perception. Please understand this. Now we want to be told what right values are, whether we need money or not, how many clothes, how many meals we should eat, at what time to get up and so on, and to learn them by heart. This is an absurd way of looking at life. Whereas to find out the subtlety of it, try to find out what prevents you from discovering right values. Then you will see that what prevents you is this continual wanting, craving, the desire to possess. Then you will know how to free yourself from craving, when you are really up against it. Now you are merely sitting back and looking at that part of your being that is wanting possessions and then saying separately, I must not have it." Find out for yourself through continued awareness, alertness of mind and heart, what are the causes that prevent you from perceiving things in their right proportion, in their right beauty. The guru who teaches you the method of independent thinking does not exist. Do not say, "My particular guru teaches me that." That is an absurd way of getting out of it. There is no method, no system; there is no guru who can liberate you. I know this is contrary to your sacred literature, to all your ways of thinking. I know it, and knowing it, I still assert that it is impossible other than your finding out for yourself, in your aloneness, the true right values of all things; and in that aloneness alone comes the ecstasy of eternal pleasure, not through following or by allowing yourself to be guided by another, or by a system. Please understand this. Where there is shaping, where there is conformity to a pattern or to an ideal, there cannot be understanding. Please let me explain it again. Most of you are trained as Hindus or Muslims or in some religious sect. Your mind has been trained from childhood on certain definite lines, and your mind is prejudiced. And with that prejudice, with that religious inclination, you have all your principles and prejudices, all your ideas of religion, of God, of ceremonies; and so you meet me always at an angle, you see me with your religion. So we meet under experiences partly completed. So we never understand, so we never follow the significance of every experience, we never take to ourselves the full perfume of the flower. Your minds are so suffocated with ideas which are mostly false that no method can free you from past tradition, because the method becomes another cage in which you will be caught. So to free the mind, never allow your past traditions, your upbringing, your social laws, your religious edicts, to penetrate your thinking. The moment you do not allow them to penetrate your thinking, you will be free. You know, it is tragic to see how we waste our energy. Our struggle now is to conform to an ideal. We establish an ideal and then try to adjust ourselves to those ideals, systems, and ideas - establish a pattern and then struggle to conform. I say, do not do that, but free the mind of all sense of conformity, which does not mean that you should do exactly what you like. Karachi, Pakistan. Third Public Lecture, Feb. 13, 1933 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:35:57 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L partial digest 864 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970129143557.0071be98@mail.eden.com> At 08:24 AM 1/29/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: theos-l@vnet.net >> >> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:13:37 -0800 >> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins >> >> I think it is important for members who are dedicated to the >> *original ideals* of this organization to be aware of its >> history. Once they are aware, they need to realize that the >> beliefs and ideals of 1925 still form the hidden rationale for >> the policies upon which the TS operates today. That is why the >> TS had been stuck for the last sixty years. . . >> >The same holds true for the LCC. They still cling to the glory >years of CWL and have extreme difficulty in changing anything >that he set down way back then. Also, the ruling bishops >are over 65, who having lived with things the way they are for so >long, can't even imagine it being any other way. > >-AEB It looks like things have to become worse before they become better. It appears that now TSA is in the forefront of institutionalizing these policies. Take for example the policy of putting study centers and lodges on "probation" before a permanent charter is issued. Also the recent unsigned article in Theosophical Messenger which expounds the three "aims" of TS. Add to it the "Approved" list of lecturers. At this rate we may soon have a set of beliefs that a member have to approve of or adhere to. The logical extension of this would be to likelyhood get certain number of approved course hours from Olcott institute before one would be allowed to run for any office. The pity is that newbees who does not know the historical facts of TS may be taking all of this as acceptable since it follows the pattern of many organized religions. The only salvation is likely to be the medium of unmoderated Internet which can present all sides of all issues and make newbees think and decide for themselves. Independent thinkers can be unpredictable and cannot be driven like a bunch of sheep. It appears that the independent thinkers who are not currying any favor -- financial or non financial -- may be the future hope. My 2 cents worth. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:17:06 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: New Advice on Women Message-ID: <199701291618.LAA21342@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: RIhle@aol.com > > Richard Ihle writes--> > The key, in my opinion, is not to worry so much about your negatives, but > just make sure you make a strong impression on them one way or another. The > reason for this is that it has been my experience that women tend to see men > of the semi-descript middle ground as merely consolation prizes. > > Tom Robertson writes--> > This makes sense. I've always felt that my total failure in this area is not > due to any particularly repellent qualities (since I've gotten to be pretty > good at hiding all of them), but that I am just too damn boring. >snip< The most impressive way for two people to impress each other is to fall in love with each other. Then there is no second-best, no comparisons. Love hides a lot of sins. In my old age I've become convinced that people don't fall in love with each other because of the way they look or what they have. They're attracted to each other because their energies are compatible and more than likely, each has inside what the other already has. > (The foregoing may be a valid insight, or it could be just a jaundiced view > lingering in the aftermath of my first serious girlfriend, Ms Georgia ______, > a half-Greek, half-American-Indian beauty who became "Miss Univac," won some > regional title in the Miss America Contest, and then left me for an airline > pilot and then later him for a top executive with Wang Industries.) Wang? Univac? Could she program in Fortran? :-) > I'll do more thinking about it, but I'll tell you right now . . . equal or > unequal, theoretically stable or unstable, I'm not getting rid of my dog. . . Dog is man's best friend. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:48:51 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Answer to Daniel Caldwell Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970129174851.006e04cc@xs4all.nl> At 03:35 13-01-97 -0500, Daniel wrote: > >In a recent posting on Theos-l, Michael Rogg wrote in part: > >"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." > >On Michael's WWW homepage, he says that "proof of their [the Masters'] >existence has never been found." > >I have a question, Michael. Have you had a chance to read K. Paul >Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED and my critique [HOUSE OF CARDS] >of his thesis on the Masters M. and K.H? In both his book and my critique >you will find testimony by Henry Olcott and others on their encounters with >these two Masters. How do you explain these experiences especially in light >of your statement that "communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite >a solid >appearance"? I have studied the history of spiritualism for more than >twenty years >and I have never found accounts in the spiritualistic literature that would >parallel >the testimonies concerning the Theosophical Masters. K. Paul Johnson >and I do not see eye to eye on many things, but we do, I believe, agree that >there >is evidence indicating that at least the Master "Koot Hoomi" was a living flesh >and blood person and not some ectoplasmic manifestation materialized through >Blavatsky's "mediumship." > First of all: My reference to figures born out of fantasy taking on quite a solid appearance, referred to Canadian "Philip" and "Hamilton" experiments. As these materialisations usually occur in seance conditions, I do not think that they apply to physical appearances of "Masters". In the light of the heated debate going on I have perused TMR and HoC. I salute K. Paul Johnson for bringing together so much biographical information of the personalities HPB came in contact with. I think his work important because it attempts to throw light on the evolution of the myth of the Masters in HPB's'mind. I can only offer my sympathy to both KPJ and his opponent being carried away by their ostensible right, but even more to the subscribers who were subjected to their arguments. PLease permit me to sum up my position. A. Scholars have hardly ever accepted HPB's version of Eastern religio-philosophical traditions. B. HPB's presentation of truth therefore hinges on acceptance of her authorities: Masters of Wisdom of a White Brotherhood residing in far away Tibet.. It surprises me that KPJ, after having drawn out the carpet underneath the Masters, is not detracted "one iota from the truth of the principles enunciated by her or the alleged Masters", because it implies absolute credence in her interpretation of Western and Eastern esoteric traditions. C. Nowhere independent proof of existence of such Masters has been found, if one discounts testimony of those involved in the apparent hoax. One of the greatest authorities, Mme. Alexandra David-Neel, gave a scathing judgment. Time and again I have brought up myself the question of the masters with informed people like John Blofeld, and Tibetan priests, some of whom close to the Dalai Lama. I met nothing but amazement of such gullibility on the part of Westerners. Baird Spalding with his Masters of Wisdom (or something like that) also cashed in on the credulity of Western audiences, not to speak of Lobsang Rampa. D. Since then never a body of teachings resembling that of Theosophy has ever been traced in the Far East. Elements yes, but the whole complex system with its interpretation? E. The Masters'/HPB' teachings were a typical product of the nineteenth century when the accent was on the intellect. It complied with the popular saying: "knowledge is power". I do not see Mahatmas like Ramakrishna, or Ramana Maharishi proclaiming such intellectual truths. Moreover Indian guru's use to frown upon performing physical paranormal phenomena. They occurred, but not intentionally. In fact such super human beings as described by HPB's have never been found. Remains the question of who perpetrated this myth? I value KPJ's work to bring forward persons who could have stood model. Yet we remain with the question of how exactly were HPB's devotees tricked? Who wrote the Mahatma letters? We know from spiritualist history that aiutomatic writing may differ completely from that of the medium. Although handwriting expertise has been applied, I wonder whether stylometry, with which style characteristics may be traced, would give any clue. This software-instrument revealed years ago that not all letters in the New Testament were written by their supposed authors. For me the Masters were either split-personalities in HPB's mind or possibly spiritualist' communicators/entities, or on a physical plane: people impersonating Theosophist Masters. Explanations will have to be found for their physical appearance to devotees. If those close to HPB were convinced of the existence of the Masters they may have been either deceived by their own fantasy or by trickery by confidants. One explanation may be that HPB tricked one half of them with the aid of the other half and vice versa. It will be difficult at this stage to establish who corroborated exactly where and when and what valid excuse was employed. I see HPB as the prime mover. Her mind was a sponge having absorbed all her childhood occult experiences and impressions. One clue is her pleasure in keeping her childhood friends spellbound by mystery stories. On top of that she was influenced during her travels by people who may have exaggerated their powers and knowledge. All this at a time that oriental religious works created quite a stir when they came available in translation. I see it as the creativity of her subconscious mind to mould it into a coherent doctrine, a popularization of western and eastern spiritual traditions into a religious faith for the general public. My admiration increases when I realize that she must have led quite a double life to perpetrate all the trickery necessary to foster credence in the idea that she was a messenger of a White Brotherhood. Psychologically, she was rewarded by the respect she craved for, combined with a true calling to serve mankind. As for her followers, Olcott c.s. would have never left a trace in history if it were not for the acceptance of the myth of the White Brotherhood. Jehova's Witnesses must feel similarly uplifted when they are told to receive salvation by spreading their truth. Theosophy is a typical product of a Western mind, no Oriental would have conceived of a dogmatic system like that of nineteenth century Theosophy. Paramount in Eastern traditions is the belief that the intellect stands in the way of apprehending reality. Zen Buddhism went farthest in breaking the mind with its severe discipline and absurd riddles, koans. In Indian ashrams salvation through knowledge would have sounded equally ridiculous. >Have you read these accounts by Olcott and others? And how do you explain >these accounts? You raise good questions but your narratives on Theos-l >and on your homepage about HPB, mediumship, the Masters and spiritualism >are couched in very vague, non-specific language and do not grapple with >the detailed accounts as given by Olcott and other witnesses to HPB's >phenomena and the encounters with the Mahatmas. It is a personal evaluation. Meanwhile I have revised slightly my pages to allow for real personalities in HPB's life having stood model for the Masters. As stated above, the Masters could well have been split-personalities. After all she had a mediamistic mind which has a tendency for such creations. I have no explanations for the detailed accounts of encounters with Masters except that confidants of HPB acted out the part, or that the witnesses simply lied or fantasized. We can only guess, what excuse HPB gave followers to play a part in the hoax for the good of the Work. As to fidelity to truth in religious matters: to what length do not followers of a faith go to further it? Letters in the New Testament were written under assumed names. Everyone knows that the Wisdom of Solomon was not written by this biblical figure, etc. etc. > Some of this rich, >detailed testimony has been published in my 1991 book titled >THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. I'll try to get hold of it, but I doubt if at this stage we can ever discover the complete truth. Unfortunately we do not have a full confession of anyone of HPB's associates. > >In the last year I have been studying the remarkable mediumship of >the Reverend Francis Monck, a contemporary of Blavatsky's. You will have read that he was sent to prison after discovery of a piece of muslin on a white frame which the medium was accused of having used to fake materilizations. However, there is a body of important evidence in his favour in particular that of archdeacon Colley. It is well known of otherwise reliable mediums to have resorted to trickery. A study of the mediumistic mind such as in Prof. Jung's Psychiatric Studies: On the psychology and pathology of so-called occult phenoena. I may try to >post on Theos-l some of the accounts of his materializations in full light. >I do agree that most Theosophists and even Blavatsky students appear to >be uninformed about the history of spiritualism and its interrelationship with >the history of Theosophy and Blavatsky. Much of what is written on mediumship >and life after death in THE MAHATMAS LETTERS is not apparently fully appreciated >by students of these letters; I believe one of the reasons is the fact that most >students and readers of these letters do not have a good background >understanding >of spiritualism, its phenomena and teachings. For example, a careful reading of >LIGHT magazine during the years 1881-1895 is very informative for the student >of Blavatsky and Theosophy. I quite agree. > >What books on spiritualism would you (Michael) recommend for interested >Theos-l readers? I will try to post in the near future a number of "reference >books" which give good overviews and a great deal of detail on spiritualism, >its phenomena, its teachings, and its history. I find it difficult to make a choice as many describe a facet. I should like to see amongst them: As for its history: Brian Inglis: "Natural and Supernatural. A history of the paranormal." Spiritualism at the time of Theosophy's foundation: Olcott's "People from the other World" Emma Hardinge: "Modern American Spiritualism" (first published in 1870) As for the case for an afterlife: Prof.Hornell Hart: The Enigma of Survival. The case for and against an afterlife (Rider & Co.) On the wealth of sub-conscious fantasy/Communicators: Jane Roberts' books on the Seth control. Books on Edgar Cayce, Geraldine Cummins: "The scripts of Cleophas" (Acts of the New Testament elaborated) Dr.Robert Crookall. "The supreme adventure". Analyses of psychic communications.(James Clarke & Co.Ltd.) and "The interpretation of cosmic & mystical experiences". Leslie A.Shepard"s Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology gives a lot of valuable information, but it is expensive. > Let me conclude in saying that whether Karma, reincarnation or other Theosophic principles are true or not, they instill a sense of responsibility in those who belief in them in the right way. I am not opposed to them as a popular faith therefore. If the myth of the masters helped to introduce them it has served its purpose. After all: what religion can do without myth? Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 14:30:20 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: HPB's authority Message-ID: <199701291930.OAA29237@leo.vsla.edu> I agree with Michael Rogge that HPB's synthesis of spiritual traditions has the strong imprint of the 19th century mind, that her understanding of source traditions was not always reliable, and that it behooves us to go directly to the sources and modern scholarship for a more grounded view. Even at my deepest stage of true believerhood, I would never have disputed this statement. But to say these things as if they somehow invalidate HPB seems to fail to appreciate the extent to which the same can be said of *any* teaching. Blavatsky Theosophists say the same about Bailey, Leadbeater, Cayce, etc.: that they are distorted interpretations of the "source" material, reflecting the biases of a later period and different circumstances, and one should go back to the source for a more grounded view. But Jews are entitled to say it about Christians, Christians about Muslims, Hindus about Buddhists and Sikhs, ad infinitum. The truth is that any new religious teaching is constructed from bits and pieces of preexisting systems, the meaning of which is changed as they are formed into new patterns. To use a Gurdjieffian expression, "That's not an exception. That's life!" So the important question concerning HPB's authority, to my mind, is not whether she accurately understood and conveyed all the material she studied; of course she didn't. What makes HPB stand so far above so many other comparable figures in history is the vastness and audacity of her spiritual quest, her literary skills, and her ability to convey what she had learned in a way that sparked important cultural transformations. You could prove all her miracles fraudulent, prove her scholarship full of holes, and prove her personal character blameworthy and that wouldn't detract at all from her status as the single most influential factor in the awakening of the West to Eastern and esoteric spiritualities. Nor would it alter the fact that she traveled to more obscure places and studied more different spiritual traditions than any other writer of her time (except her friend Sir Richard Burton). Nor would it change the fact that she took heretofore obscure, dusty subjects and wrote about them so engagingly as to hit the best-seller lists of her time (if they had them). That's where her greatness lies, and I continue to regard her as having attained greatness. This despite agreeing with Mr. Rogge on a subject where he has perceived my views to be quite different than they actually are. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:36:40 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Gurus - K's Discussion Message-ID: <199701291936.LAA09591@palrel1.hp.com> M K Ramadoss quoted Krishnamurti: > The guru who teaches you the method of independent thinking does not > exist. Do not say, "My particular guru teaches me that." That is an absurd > way of getting out of it. There is no method, no system; there is no guru > who can liberate you. I'm glad you have found Krishnamurti's words to be helpful, Doss. I don't criticize that, but I have to say that the above is misleading. There are many examples of ethical gurus who do teach their chelas independent thinking. They were strict in some of their chelas formative years, but respected their volition and trained them to be independent. To list a few, contemporary and historical: Sai Baba, Paramahansa Yogananda, Ramakrishna. Compared to the "fat gurus" who exploit people, they are vastly fewer in number. Today, I would say that one's chances of meeting an ethical guru are not far from zero. But that doesn't mean that one can't learn from from the ethical few. I find tremendous value in reading Yogananda, who certainly developed admirably under his guru, Yukteswar. No method or no system? One has to start somewhere. A method or system is not the end in itself, true. Yogic exercises have for thousands of years been the means to an end. They can become "non-living", empty procedures if one does not unite with the "spirit" in them. But if one correctly follows a guru's teachings, he is not merely mechanically going through the motions. He is becoming aware of where they lead to, namely, one's own realization. My previously posted example of teaching someone tennis by showing him typical strokes, racket grips, follow through, etc., is a simple illustration. These steps get the student in touch with his body, with his natural inclinations. Most of us are not in touch with our "natural" inclinations. If we were, we wouldn't need instruction. In the same way that you offer structure to a child initially, you have to offer it to a person who has not united with his inner structure yet. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 13:19:30 -0800 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Western Style of the Mahatmas Message-ID: <199701292120.NAA30580@scv1.apple.com> >In Indian >ashrams salvation through knowledge would have sounded equally ridiculous. While most of your points were well taken, I would have to argue with this one. Jnana-Yoga is a well-established and longstanding limb of the yogic path, and it essentially consists of enlightenment through philosophy. For me, the main factor demonstrating the Western origin of the Theosophical teachings is the casual ease with which Western allusions are scattered through the works of supposedly Eastern writers. While the (Indian or) Tibetan Koot Hoomi, for instance, has no difficulty dropping casual references to the Greek myth of Echo and St. Paul's vision on the road, as well as to contemporary Western writers in great profusion and to European idioms everywhere, his references to actual Eastern words and doctrines are self-conscious, plodding, and relatively rare in comparison to the casual Western allusions; a very small set of ideas is presented over and over, and in a presentational mode rather than the conversational mode in which the Western ideas are often expressed. Here we have a writer who seems much more comfortable in one world than the other -- which world, then, should we think the writer came from? Or should we assume that Spencer's pamphlets on evolutionary philosophy were common reading in the ashrams and lamaseries of the time? Tim Maroney From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:45:52 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: RE: keeping our language lucid Message-ID: <199701292145.NAA14767@palrel3.hp.com> Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB wrote: > One thing I have experienced talking to "newbies" about spirituality and > the Theosophical World-view is, that they really listen, that is if you can > manage to touch a core in their own life's experience. > > On the other hand I find it often most difficult to get anywhere near the > OLD, all-knowing THEOSOPHISTS, that have figured it all out, and only > listen to you through or with their own ideas. For those you HAVE to > use the jargon technical terms, and preferably quote volumes and > pages, to get their attention - but there is still no real contact or > communion there. I have experienced that also - not in theosophy specifically. Many people around my age (42) are already jaded. If you give them something new to think about, it's "Been there. Done that." or "What good is that going to do?" They pidgeon-hole what you say into an ossified set of beliefs. Sigh. I hope that's not a mirror of what I'm like. Or I hope I don't become like that. > So, I like to try to make my theosophical guidance as unconventional > and simple as possible. I rather use Ideas from the old scriptures, like > Tao te Ching, The Prophet, Light on the Path, etc., anything simple > and profound, but I don't like to quote them directly. > One thing I like to do is to take extracts from the Sermon on the Mount > and even the Lord's Prayer, and explain and discuss those from the > Theosophical World-view. Ann Ree Colton had a wonderful exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. I'll have to locate it, but I remember the gist of her words on "Blessed are the poor in spirit." We all surrendered something of the spirit when we entered this heavy world of gross matter. The klosha veils obscuring our eternal origins mean that we have to struggle in this world and through struggle to give birth to a kind of consciousness not otherwise possible. In this struggle for consciousness we are ultimately "blessed" for we move beyond the stage where we suck at the breasts of divinity, but become gods. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 16:11:58 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: Condition of the TS in 1925 Message-ID: <9701300011.AA21356@toto.csustan.edu> >> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins >> >> I think it is important for members who are dedicated to the >> *original ideals* of this organization to be aware of its >> history. Once they are aware, they need to realize that the >> beliefs and ideals of 1925 still form the hidden rationale for >> the policies upon which the TS operates today. That is why >> the TS had been stuck for the last sixty years. . . AEB >The same holds true for the LCC. They still cling to the glory >years of CWL and have extreme difficulty in changing anything >that he set down way back then. Also, the ruling bishops >are over 65, who having lived with things the way they are for >so long, can't even imagine it being any other way. JHE The history of the LCC is so intertwined with the TS that I hold little hope for it either. CWL's and GSA's idea for the LCC was for it to be the vehicle for the new religion brought forward by the world teacher (Krishnamurti). As someone had mentioned before on theos-l, being active in the LCC, ES, Co-Masonry and the Egyptian Rite are to this day expected of those who wish to find themselves in the inner group that really runs the TS. In the eyes of those ruling Bishops, this remains the one important function of the LCC. IMO, if the LCC is to survive and grow, it will have to dissociate itself from the TS and find its own purpose for existance. MKR >It looks like things have to become worse before they become >better. It appears that now TSA is in the forefront of >institutionalizing these policies. Take for example the policy >of putting study centers and lodges on "probation" before a >permanent charter is issued. Also the recent unsigned article >in Theosophical Messenger which expounds the three "aims" of TS. >Add to it the "Approved" list of lecturers. JHE I think the probation idea came about because they got tired of issuing charters to Study Centers and Lodges which folded after a couple of years. But the three "aims" article was without question a political move. The "Apporved" list of lecturers is an old idea that keeps popping up. My first experience with it was in Los Angeles in the late 60's. Hida Tilson (one of the inner leaders of the TS at the time) tired to set it up as a "Speakers Bureau." The hidden agenda at the time was to take Stephan Hoeller out of the lecture circuit, because he was considered an "enemy" in those days. MKR >At this rate we may soon have a set of beliefs that a member >have to approve of or adhere to. The logical extension of this >would be to likelyhood get certain number of approved course >hours from Olcott institute before one would be allowed to run >for any office. JHE This "set of beliefs" idea is the great schizophrenia of the TS that Annie Besant and CWL had so much trouble over. Ernest Wood talks about it in his book. All of that "inner government" authority that CWL devised in 1908 -- for which he and Besant became the mouthpiece -- was in direct contradiction to the freedom of thought ideals established by HPB, HSO and WQJ. It is one of the really interesting dynamics that made the TS to crazy during the Besant/Leadbeater years. Besant would on the one hand preach freedom of thought and then push people out of the TS who disagreeded with her. See my other post "the roots of 1925" for a document concerning this. MKR >The pity is that newbees who does not know the historical facts >of TS may be taking all of this as acceptable since it follows >the pattern of many organized religions. JHE That is why the management gets away with what they do. Most people are more like sheep than they want to admit. They follow the leadership assuming the best, and they don't ask enough questions. MKR >The only salvation is likely to be the medium of unmoderated >Internet which can present all sides of all issues and make >newbees think and decide for themselves. Independent thinkers >can be unpredictable and cannot be driven like a bunch of sheep. >It appears that the independent thinkers who are not currying >any favor -- financial or non financial -- may be the future >hope. JHE I hope this is so. I'm doing what I can. But just making the facts known is not enough. The majority of the membership has to recognise what is going on and take some responsibility to make changes. This is not easy. History shows that minority voices like Ernest Wood, F.T. Brooks and T.H. Martyn were not believed by the membership. They were regarded as "malcontents." A few years ago, my wife reviewed several academic studies on people who try to tell the people in their group that the Emperor has no clothes. In industry they are called "whistle blowers." At the very least, they are regarded as "malcontents" and it is assumed that they are gaining some undisclosed benefit from speaking out. In practice, these whistle blowers were found to have been motivated by conscience and the duty to do what is right. In the work place, as a general rule, they end up loosing their job. Often they are barred from getting another job in the same industry. In some cases, when a lot of money is at stake, the corruption is entensive, and the corrupt elements are in danger of being exposed, the whistle blower is murdered. Those who survive, typically live in poverty for the rest of their lives, whether they succeed in exposing the corruption or not. Two popular movies came out some years ago that show the real dynamics. One was called "Marie." It was about a woman who exposed the corruption in a southern prison system. My wife traveled back east to interview her. She was one of the very lucky ones who still has a life. One of her associates who tried to help her expose the corruption was murdered. ------------------------------------------ |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, 29 Jan 1997 16:13:02 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: The roots of 1925 Message-ID: <9701300013.AA22537@toto.csustan.edu> The following was written by Krishnamurtui in 1911, and published in a now very scarce book that was once sold to the members of the TS. I post it here because I think it throws some light on the historical background to the elsewhere discussed frenzy of 1925. Also, what is stated here about Mrs. Besant's authority as an Initiate, is still held to be so by those that have controlled the TS over the past sixty years. ----------------------------------------------------- MRS BESANT What can I say to you of your dear President that you do not know already? Her colossal intellect, her unfailing wisdom, her unrivalled eloquence, her splendid forgetfulness of self, her untiring devotion to work for others--all these are familiar to you. Yet these qualities, these powers, are but a small part of her greatness; they are on the surface; they may be seen by all; they may leap to the eyes. But there are other qualities, other powers of which you cannot know, because they pertain to the secrets of Initiation. She is a pupil of our Masters; from the fount of Their archaic wisdom she derives her own; the plans which she is carrying out are Their plans for the welfare of the world. Think therefore how great an honour it is for you that you should be permitted to work under her, for in doing so you are virtually working under Them. Think how watchful you should be to miss no hint which falls from her lips, to carry out exactly whatever instructions she may give you. Remember that because of her position as an Initiate she knows far more than you do; and precisely because her knowledge is occult, given under the seal of Initiation, she cannot share it with you. Therefore, her actions must constantly be governed by considerations of which you have no conception. There will be times when you cannot understand her motives, for she is taking into account many things which you cannot see, and of which she must not tell you. But whether you understand or not, you will be wise to follow her implicitly, just because she knows. This is no mere supposition on my part, no flight of the imagination; I have stood beside your President in the presence of the Supreme Director of evolution on this globe, and I know whereof I speak. Let the wise hear my words, and act accordingly. (J. Krishnamurti, ADYAR, THE HOME OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY). ------------------------------------------ |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, 29 Jan 1997 19:30:56 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: More Responses to Tom Message-ID: <19970130004421.AAA29750@JerrySchueler> Tom: >If I jump off the Grand Canyon, I do not decide that I will fall. The >law of gravity exists independently of anything I can do and >regardless of whether or not I am aware of it. Not altogether true, Tom. The so-called "law of gravity" is but one of many social agreements that we monads made when we came here. Not our human personalities, but our spiritual Selves. These "laws" exist independently of personalities and physical bodies, but are very dependent on our Egoes (cap E) or Selves (cap S) or higher self (or whatever you want to call your spiritual counterpart or core). >The perception of them is real. They are not. Anything unreal cannot be perceived. Things are perceived because they are real. You might even say that perception is a test for reality. >If an hallucination is real, the term "mistaken perception" has no >meaning. It could mean that our perception has changed. It could also mean that our perception is not in agreement with society. "Hallucination" means that we experience something that no one else experiences. What is seen is nonetheless real. >If I thought that there was no such thing as the >Theosophical Society, I would be just as truthful as someone else who >thought there was. The word "truth" would be meaningless. "Truth" means different things to differnt people. It usually means whatever we experience. The human mind always tries to fit our experience into some kind of model or mental system--today called a worldview. When our worldview matches our experience, we call this truth or reality. However, our experiences always keep changing, and so our worldview must change, and with it our sense of reality or truth changes as well. >It exists as a perception, but not necessarily as reality. Here is apparently where we have our real disagreement. I can't imagine how anyone can perceive something that doesn't exist. It has to exist in order to be perceived. Perception is reality. As our perception changes (hopefully toward the spiritual) so our reality changes as well. Thoughts and ideas are real things on the inner planes, even those that have no physical manifestation or counterpart. >I find the idea that the law of karma changes as my perception of it >changes to be very far-fetched. That would mean that there is no >objective law of karma. What do you mean by objective? If you mean governed by God, or ruled by deities or angels, then I would say no, there is no such law of karma. And if God does not rule such a "law" then who does? We do. We make our own karma, and let ourselves be affected by it for good or ill. No one else does it for us. However, it certainly seems objective to us as we go through life, doesn't it. The general agreements that the monads make between each other during each life-wave, for each Globe, establishes the laws, rules, and policies of that life-wave and Globe. This then becomes the collective karma for that life-wave. This is all done telepathically by monads or spiritual beings--which we humans are but the temporary human expression. Thus our collective karma is that which we all have agreed to before we begin incarnations on any Globe. Its kind of like the rules of a game. Once the rules are established, the game must be played within them, else one is a bad sport. Adepts are bad sports, sometimes, because they are able to break the rules with impunity (ie., they can act karmaless). However, like all bad sports, they are usually shunned by the other players, and they do have a price to pay for their boldness. >If the law of karma is different for you than it is for me, then it is >a non-existent figment of our imagination. Why wouldn't the law of >gravity work the same way? Maybe if I do not believe in it, it does >not exist. I think I already covered this one. Karma and gravity are two of the rules of the game of life that we are currently playing on Globe D of the Earth planetary chain of 12 Globes. By the way, there is no such thing as "figment of the imagination" in the way it is commonly used. Imagination is a divine characteristic that allows us to go beyond our human condition. You degrade that divine attribute by such a phrase. Everything that we can imagine has a reality somewhere on the inner planes, else we wouldn't be able to imagine it. >I infer that you mean that we can escape the consequences of our >actions simply by choosing to do so. I disagree. You are becoming tangled in pronouns. The I that can indeed escape karma is not the personality or everyday human I. Even the physical body can escape its normal karmic destiny. Jesus did it, and others in the East are said to have had their physical bodies disappear after death (Milarepa and many others). >Do they mean to neither plan for the future nor learn from the past? No, they mean that we should consider the lilies, how they grow and toil not, etc. >Does this have something to do with recognizing the connection, if not >the identity, between subject and object? Right. Below the Abyss it is a connection. Above the Abyss it is an identity. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:44:10 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Karma & Reality (to Tom) Message-ID: <19970130004421.AAB29750@JerrySchueler> Tom: > Is "overlapping of Not-I's" different from objective reality? I can >see how perceptions of different subjects overlap due to their both >perceiving the same reality. Yes, it is different. Objective reality is the Not-I, virtually everything that exists that you identitify yourself with. If you identify yourself with your physical body, than that is part of your I. If not, then it is part of your Not-I. Overlapping Not-I's are the agreements or shared experiences that we all have in this life-wave. I call them signposts, because these are the things that we all can generally agree exist. This is real easy on the phsycial plane, where our physical sense are pretty much in agreement. But on the inner planes, overlapping is less and less, and signposts become very important. My Not-I is not your Not-I. >Was this agreement made consciously? Are you saying that you believe >that the laws of, say, karma and gravity could have been different if >we had decided to make them different? Unconsciously, as we use the terms, because it takes place above or outside the human ego. Yes, karma and gravity work differently on the other Globes of our chain, because our agreements are different there. But, in a sense, the karma of any one Globe depends on the karma carried over from its past imbodiment, because planets reimbody much like we do. The wheels-within-wheels of this whole devilishly clever scheme that HPB gave us are truly awesome. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:03:06 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The roots of 1925 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130010306.007016b4@mail.eden.com> At 07:11 PM 1/29/97 -0500, you wrote: > >The following was written by Krishnamurtui in 1911, and published >in a now very scarce book that was once sold to the members of >the TS. I post it here because I think it throws some light on >the historical background to the elsewhere discussed frenzy of >1925. Also, what is stated here about Mrs. Besant's authority as >an Initiate, is still held to be so by those that have controlled >the TS over the past sixty years. > >----------------------------------------------------- > MRS BESANT > >What can I say to you of your dear President that you do not know >already? Her colossal intellect, her unfailing wisdom, her >unrivalled eloquence, her splendid forgetfulness of self, her >untiring devotion to work for others--all these are familiar to >you. Yet these qualities, these powers, are but a small part of >her greatness; they are on the surface; they may be seen by all; >they may leap to the eyes. But there are other qualities, other >powers of which you cannot know, because they pertain to the >secrets of Initiation. She is a pupil of our Masters; from the >fount of Their archaic wisdom she derives her own; the plans >which she is carrying out are Their plans for the welfare of the >world. Think therefore how great an honour it is for you that >you should be permitted to work under her, for in doing so you >are virtually working under Them. Think how watchful you should >be to miss no hint which falls from her lips, to carry out >exactly whatever instructions she may give you. Remember that >because of her position as an Initiate she knows far more than >you do; and precisely because her knowledge is occult, given >under the seal of Initiation, she cannot share it with you. >Therefore, her actions must constantly be governed by >considerations of which you have no conception. There will be >times when you cannot understand her motives, for she is taking >into account many things which you cannot see, and of which she >must not tell you. But whether you understand or not, you will >be wise to follow her implicitly, just because she knows. This >is no mere supposition on my part, no flight of the imagination; >I have stood beside your President in the presence of the Supreme >Director of evolution on this globe, and I know whereof I speak. >Let the wise hear my words, and act accordingly. >(J. Krishnamurti, ADYAR, THE HOME OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY). > > >------------------------------------------ > |Jerry Hejka-Ekins, | > |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT | > |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu | > |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org | > ------------------------------------------ > Thanks for the post. This is the model, it appears that many even today may be believing. ie. any and every decision coming on from the top should be uncritically accepted and supported because of the implication (belief) that those at the top know better and there is no need to explain anything. I ran into an instance when I heard about a TS member (an older person) was "terrified" about even the thought of voting against the Bylaw Changes (described as *housekeeping*) brought before the TSA Membership a year ago. With this *model* it is very easy to make individuals *conform*. With little imagination one can easily understand the potential/actual consequences if this kind of behaviour permeates all through the chain of command. I have not seen any evidence that it *is* not the case. I have an open mind and would welcome anyone to throw some real factual light on this to dispel this scenario. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:29:37 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: The humorous proofs Message-ID: <01BC0E4A.0237A060@rvik-ppp-216.ismennt.is> I got this from a friend. THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS JEWISH: 1. He went into his fathers business 2. He lived home until the age of 33 3. He was sure that his mother was a virgin and his mother was sure he was God THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS IRISH: 1. He never got married 2. He never held a steady job 3. His last request was a drink THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS PUERTO RICAN: 1. His first name was Jesus 2. He was always in trouble with the law 3. His mother did not know who his father was THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS ITALIAN: 1. He talked with his hands 2. He had vine every meal 3. He worked in the building trade THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS BLACK: 1. He called everybody brother 2. He had no permanent address 3. Nobody would hire him THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS CALIFORNIAN: 1. He never cut his hair 2. He walked around barefoot 3. He invented a new religion Alleluia To be taken with a slurp of light spirit! Einar From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 01:28:31 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: RE: Repost of re: simple language - to Einar Message-ID: <01BC0E4C.E8FB06C0@rvik-ppp-216.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0E4C.E8FB06C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Martin Euser wrote: Einar: could you give us one or two examples to illustrate your approach a bit more? Martin Einar here. I will prepare some examples of my approach as soon as possible but I have to take some time for translating etc. Right now I am al little short with time, but if I wait a bit, more of it will surely come my way. So, meanwhile, keep up the spirit! Love and light as always, Einar. ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0E4C.E8FB06C0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IiIBAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AAwBAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADAFAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAD8AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AFNNVFAAdGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldAAAHgACMAEAAAAF AAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABEAAAB0aGVvcy1sQHZuZXQubmV0AAAAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD+DwYA AAAeAAEwAQAAABMAAAAndGhlb3MtbEB2bmV0Lm5ldCcAAAIBCzABAAAAFgAAAFNNVFA6VEhFT1Mt TEBWTkVULk5FVAAAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAAFHy0BCIAHABgAAABJ UE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEALQAAAFJFOiBSZXBvc3Qgb2YgcmU6IHNpbXBs ZSBsYW5ndWFnZSAtIHRvIEVpbmFyAAEPAQWAAwAOAAAAzQcBAB4AAQAcAB8ABAAzAQEggAMADgAA AM0HAQAeAAEAHAAfAAQAMwEBCYABACEAAABEQUJCMzU3NjM2N0FEMDExQTEwRDQ0NDU1MzU0MDAw MADdBgEDkAYAsAMAABIAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAEAAOQAgbR3n TA68AR4AcAABAAAALQAAAFJFOiBSZXBvc3Qgb2YgcmU6IHNpbXBsZSBsYW5ndWFnZSAtIHRvIEVp bmFyAAAAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAAAAG8DkznHXY1u956NhHQoQ1ERVNUAAAAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNN VFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAASAAAAYW5uYXNiQGlzbWVubnQuaXMAAAADAAYQj7TiVgMABxBBAQAAHgAI EAEAAABlAAAATUFSVElORVVTRVJXUk9URTpFSU5BUjpDT1VMRFlPVUdJVkVVU09ORU9SVFdPRVhB TVBMRVNUT0lMTFVTVFJBVEVZT1VSQVBQUk9BQ0hBQklUTU9SRT9NQVJUSU5FSU5BUkhFUgAAAAAC AQkQAQAAACACAAAcAgAA1gMAAExaRnXUczjr/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcG AAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzO3EswHEwKDNALkFUV9CoA/CM8J2QKACoENsQtgbmcwMTAz OQr7FFIyNIYgCoUKi2xpMzYN8LkLWTE2CqADYBPQYwVBFwGRBdAKwHQLgCBFdaURsHIaDSB3HYI6 C0Z/FeEL8RtYIIodZwqGHgJFEwuACsA6IAWgdWxkBCB5CGAgZ2l2ZTogHsAgAiAlMAWxdHfAbyBl eGFtC1AHkZ50JhADEApAE8ByYRPQZwqFJMEFwGFwHXEA0GhxKEAgYmkFQARgF6A/nxr8HkQKjxpf I/MgaASQtGUuGvxJH/Am8SATUHZlKwElMHMDcCUwJjdv+mYpMHkoSQQgL3ACIDEyNHBvBBBpAmAn hmJ1vwVALoARgCUhJsEBkGsvVf8ecC+RAhAl0SdQAIALYB5xEmcmIHRjLZZSaWfyaAVAbm8H4C6A JlAoQN8DIBwwAkAmgC9gaBdBLpH2dCjANGIsMtMGkC5yC3D/BUAo4zjgKUIwQikRKtUuo/JzCHBl bDCQBaAvkTCBpTmQeS2dU286MWUAcPx3aAMQONEz4C8QJUA+8JM4cC9RcGkFEHQhGvz8TG8lIQBw JKAcMDaCMUHzB0A8sXMsGvwj8y2WG99/Ii8a/EOvHHcahCKuFsEAAUpQAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAQAA AEAABzBgM3bySw68AUAACDAgbR3nTA68AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAALf0= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0E4C.E8FB06C0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:15:01 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kathleen Dixon Subject: Re: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: <199701300415.RAA18010@ihug.co.nz> >Doss: >>> The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the >>> less intelligent, less educated person. ... > >We won't. We can't. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, >people concentrate their time on basic survival first, then safety, >and only then will they begin to think about such things as theosophy. >Unfortunately, the masses are all pretty much wrapped up on Maslow's >lower levels, and don't have much time for such things as theosophy. >We may be able to get in a few things, but the masses will never >have time to study theosophy or any other philosophy. > >Jerry S. >Member, TI Not only, that (we won't. we can't.), but *why*? Why do we need to make Theosophy reach the masses? Knowing about Theosophy isn't going to change the world, not even if all the world knew about it. I suppose we could quibble here about the semantics - I have used the words "knowing about Theosophy", while Doss said "reach the masses". Perhaps we *can* make Theosophy reach the masses by engaging in "good works". Perhaps the Theosophical Order of Service has actually got the right idea .... by showing the action that comes from the ideal of "brotherhood" we can show the world part of what Theosophy is about, and lead on from there. But I still question the need to reach the masses. Kathleen Dixon. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:33:23 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: James Morgan Pryse's Experience Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130043323.007173b8@mail.eden.com> Couple of years ago, one of the frequent attendees of our lodge mentioned to me about Pryse's experience with HPB. Since I have never seen it, she graceously provided me with a copy. BTW, she was not a member of TS nor did she joined it. My grateful thanks go to her. Here is the account. ================================= MEMORABILIA OF H. P. BLAVATSKY By James Morgan Pryse When the editor of the Canadian Theosophist asked me, several years ago, to write my memoirs of H.P.B. I declined to do so explaining that an account of my personal experiences with H.P.B. would necessarily be a tale of two worlds. Since then other friends have kept urging me to write the memoirs, and finally I have reluctantly consented to write them. As a personality "the Old Lady" as we affectionately called her, was like a mother to me; but if my reminiscences were to be confined to that personality, dealing only with happenings and doings in the physical world, they would be of little interest and would convey an utterly false impression of the real H.P.B. with whom I was acquainted. So I must tell this tale of two worlds, however strange and incredible it may seem to many, if not most, theoretical Theosophists. It is a true narrative, but those who are unable to accept it as such are at perfect liberty to regard it as a romance or fairy-tale, and let it go at that. Whether they believe it or not is no concern of mine. But there are some Theosophists who have passed beyond the stage of theoretical study, and my story is especially for them. In narrating my experiences with H.P.B. it is of course necessary to include myself in the narrative when I would greatly prefer to say nothing whatever about myself. That is one of the reasons why I have hitherto refused to write my memoirs. During the most impressionable years of childhood I lived in a Welsh community in Minnesota among a people who believed in fairies, saw ghosts occasionally and had other psychic experiences, of which they spoke freely. Being of the same race myself, I had similar experiences. Few Theosophists realize how inseparably the psychic and the physical worlds are conjoined. When a child it was sometimes difficult for me to distinguish the one from the other. In those days while yet but a small boy, I first came into mental contact, vaguely with H.P.B. In my father's library there was on old "Dictionary of Biography" Goodrich's, if I remember correctly. It gave brief biographical sketches of ancient worthies and unworthies, and was illustrated with many small woodcut portraits. There was one of Paracelsus, the great Swiss Occultist and it fascinated me so that I gazed at it long and often. The text characterized him as a charlatan or impostor; but as I read it I knew that it was false, and that he was one of the best men that ever lived. This was not merely a psychometric impression such as I received from some of the other portraits in the book. It was a haunting sense of familiarity, a conviction that I had known him when he was on earth and would meet him again incarnated. Years afterward while doing newspaper work in Nebraska I read a brief despatch from New York stating that Mdme. Blavatsky and Col. Olcott had started a society for the study of Oriental Literature. Again came that haunting sense of familiarity and I wanted to write to that Mdme. Blavatsky (whose name I then read for the first time); but the despatch gave no address. Later in Philadelphia, I met Mrs. Verplanck ("Jasper Niemand"), who was closely associated with Mr. Judge with whom I came to be well acquainted "in the astral" after I had settled in Los Angeles in 1886. In those days many Theosophists were ambitious to become "Chelas" or "lay chelas" by getting into communication with the Masters whom H.P.B. represented. Having no doubt that the Masters were being pestered by so many applicants I refrained from any attempt to reach H.P.B. or her Master or to attract their attention to my unimportant self. But my mind kept dwelling on Paraceleus, with a distinct impression that he was again incarnated; so I resolved to find him, if possible, and in my daily meditation concentrated my mind on him. One evening while I was thus Meditating the face of H.P.B. flashed before me. I recognized it from her portrait in Isis, though it appeared much older. Thinking that the astral picture, as I took it to be, was due to some vagary of fancy, I tried to exclude it; but at that the face showed a look of impatience and instantly I was drawn out of my body and immediately was standing "in the astral" beside H.P.B. in London. It was along toward morning there, but she was still seated at her writing desk. While she was speaking to me, very kindly, I could not help thinking how odd it was that an apparently fleshy old lady should be an Adept. I tried to put that impolite thought out of my mind, but she read it, and as if in answer to it her physical body became translucent, revealing a marvellous inner body that looked as if it were formed of molten gold. Then suddenly the Master M. appeared before us in his mayavi-rupa. To him I made profound obeisance, for he seemed to me more like a God than a man. Somehow I knew who he was, though this was the first time I had seen him. He spoke to me graciously and said "I shall have work for you in six months." He walked to the further side of the room, waved his hand in farewell and departed. Then H.P.B. dismissed me with the parting words, "God bless you." and directly I saw the waves of the Atlantic beneath me; I floated down and dipped my feet in their crests. Then with a rush I crossed the continent till I saw the lights of Los Angeles and returned to my body, seated in the chair where I had left it. Thus by looking for Paracelsus, while resolved not to intrude on H.P.B. and the Master M. I found them all. For H.P.B. simply was Paracelsus, and in my ignorance of that fact I had blundered, happily stumbling upon a triumphant outcome vastly beyond anything I had expected. Six months afterward the Master's promise was made good. My brother John and I, returning from a trip to South America landed in New York City. We found Mr. Judge perplexed by a difficult problem. H.P.B. had directed him to send her Instructions to all the American members of the E.S. but had sent him only one copy, and he had no facilities for making the many copies needed. We solved that problem for him by establishing the Aryan Press and printing the Instructions in book form. Then, in response to a cable from H.P.B. I went to London to do the same work there, and started the H.P.B. Press. When I met H.P.B. we did not need to "become acquainted". It was as if we had known each other always. She invited Dr. Keightley and myself to eat Christmas dinner with her; and after dinner we played whist, H.P.B. taking the dummy. But these unimportant events in the outer world are not memorabilia. At lunch one day Mrs. Besant became a bit angry because some stationery had been delivered at a side door instead of at the back door, for which she blamed Mr. Mead. I explained that I had ordered the stationery for Mr. Mead and therefore was to blame for its being delivered at the wrong door. I had not known that it made any difference. Mrs. Besant immediately became pleasant again and all was serene. But that afternoon it passed through my mind that as a successor to H.P.B. Mrs. Besant was too immature to be entrusted with the guidance of the T.S. The thought was not tinged with the slightest ill-will, and I dismissed it quickly, without dwelling upon it. When I awoke next morning and sat up preparatory to jumping out of bed I saw a written page in the air in front of me. I recognized H.P.B.'s writing and guessed that she meant to reprove me for doubting Mrs. Besant's fitness to become her successor; so I refused to read the writing. At that she sent a powerful electric current up my spine to compel me to read the writing. Then as I obstinately refused to read it, she spoke to me audibly, saying that I was wrong in my estimate of Mrs. Besant, who was her "personal pupil" and would do great things for the society. I held to my original opinion, but said nothing. Immediately after dressing I went to Mr. Mead's office and right afterward H.P.B. came in from an adjoining room. After greeting us she said to me, 'Well, Pryse, have you seen any more visions lately?" My scalp was still sore from the current she had sent up my spine, but I ignored her covert reference to that morning's little tilt between us and said, "O Yes, as usual." She then asked me why I had not been in the drawing-room for several evenings past, but when I started to explain that I had been doing night work on the instructions, she threw out her arms and gazed fixedly into space. Her face took on a look of horror and she uttered a half-suppressed scream and cried 'No! no!". She was seeing a vision and standing beside her I saw it too, not visually, but as a series of vivid mental pictures. That vision foreshowed the fate of the T.S. after her death; the dismemberment of the Society, the deplorable doings of its misguided members, and the fakery, falsification and folly of the various factions. When the vision ended she let her arms fall and looked at me to see if I had shared it. My gaze met hers and she knew from the look on my face that I also had seen I the harrowing vision. Without a word she turned and with bowed head tottered back to her room. I take it that until then she had not been permitted to foresee the future of the T.S.; but when she tried to impose on me an optimistic view of it the actual future was revealed to her, and incidentally to me. Who showed her the vision I do not know. One evening at the dinner-table gloom was cast over the Headquarters' staff by the announcement that H.P.B. was so ill that the doctor did not expect her to live till morning. Pondering sadly on this when I had retired to my room, I decided to try a certain experiment. In years past I made hundreds of mesmeric experiments, with different subjects, sometimes using my prana as a healing force. As H.P.B. was dying for lack of this vital force, while I, a young man had plenty of it, I determined to transfer, by a mesmeric process, half my prana to H.P.B. It is analogous psychically to the transfusion of blood physically. As I began concentrating to make the transfer H.P.B. called to me, physically but audibly. "Don't do it; it's black magic." Undeterred, I cabled back to her "Very well, Old Lady, black magic or not, I'm going to do it anyway" and I did. Next morning I felt decidedly feeble; but that was a matter of no lasting consequence, as it took but a few days to renew my strength. At the breakfast table we had good news; H.P.B. was recovering having made a sudden remarkable improvement which nonplussed the doctor. I relate this incident only because it led to a very significant one several years later. H.P.B. passed away suddenly, seated in a chair. As I helped carry the body over to a lounge I had a distinct impression that she had not "died" but had deserted the body instantly for a set purpose. She had told Claude Wright that she did not want to come back as a baby, and so the chelas were looking for a body which she could appropriate at the moment it was vacated by the soul, though still organically in good condition. Several years afterward, however, Mrs. Besant and Mr. Judge gave out a statement that H.P.B. had reincarnated. One day Mrs. Besant said to me "James, since H.P.B. has reincarnated, wouldn't it be a good plan for you to meditate and try to find her?" I said that I was willing to try. She suggested that I should meditate in H.P.B.'s room evenings; and as the room was kept locked she gave me the key. The first evening I meditated there, seated on the lounge, I saw nothing but irrelevant the lounge, I saw nothing but irrelevant pictures in the astral light and it was the same the second evening. When I meditated the third evening I had the unusual experience of seeing nothing whatever, though I concentrated on H.P.B. for about two hours. Convinced that she had not reincarnated, I got up and started to leave the room. The lounge on which I had been seated was on the side of the room opposite the door. It was midnight and the room was totally dark. But when I had walked about halfway to the door the room was suddenly lighted up, and I saw a young man standing about three feet from me. He was of medium height, strongly built, and his face was attractive and forceful. I took him to be a university student. Surprised at his sudden appearance, for apparently he was a man in the flesh, and wondering how he had entered the room noiselessly while the door was securely locked, I for the moment overlooked the phenomenal lighting up of the room. I was about to speak to him, but just then a brilliant aura flashed around him, and a series of pictures appeared in it revealing that he was H.P.B. He was in the mayavi-rupa, which faithfully reproduced his outer form. He said not a word but suddenly vanished, and I stood alone in the darkness. I kept the matter secret, as he evidently expected me to do so. At one time during the well-known "Judge row" which justified my secrecy, I was completely worn out with overwork and the strain of those dreadful days. I would crawl into bed late at night, sleep like a log, and awake in the morning unrefreshed and utterly weary. One night as I was retiring I thought, "A week or two more of this will be the end of me." I awoke in the morning feeling half dead and uncertain whether I had strength to get up. It was broad daylight and the sun was shining through the windows. Then I saw the young man whom I had seen in H.P.B.'s room. Standing at the foot of my bed, he stretched out his arms above my feet. A powerful electric current, shock after shock went all through my body for several minutes. Then he drew back his arms and vanished. I sprang out of bed with all my strength and energy renewed. Thus H.P.B. repaid my loan of prana. With the assistance of Mrs. Lloyd, a good amateur artist and quite clairvoyant, I obtained an excellent oil portrait of the reembodied H.P.B. but I gave his face the Rajput colouring to match that of his Guru, the Master M. This is the portrait which Mr. Judge said was that of his 'Higher Self" (his imaginary Hindu double). With my permission Mr. Judge had a copy of it made, which he and his followers exploited as that of "the Rajah." Of the real man, H.P.B. re-embodied, known to me in this life as "Old Lady" and long ago as Paracelsus, whom I followed and still follow, I shall for the present say no more. My tale of two worlds is finished. -end- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:39:48 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Pryse's Experience Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130043948.007272f8@mail.eden.com> I have just posted a write up by Pryse regarding some experience is of some interest. It is very interesting to note in it: 1. Members pestering HPB to have her Master(s) accept them as disciples. 2. The shocking future vision that HPB and Pryse saw. I wonder if she saw the immediate problems that TS will face or did she see immediate as well as later problems, as late as more than a century. No one will know, unless there was some notes that HPB had made which never got published. 3. The certainity with which Pryse identified HPB's Master. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 22:47:30 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130044730.006d4a74@mail.eden.com> At 11:36 PM 1/29/97 -0500, you wrote: > >>Doss: >>>> The problem is how to make Theosophy reach the masses, especially the >>>> less intelligent, less educated person. ... >> >>We won't. We can't. According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, >>people concentrate their time on basic survival first, then safety, >>and only then will they begin to think about such things as theosophy. >>Unfortunately, the masses are all pretty much wrapped up on Maslow's >>lower levels, and don't have much time for such things as theosophy. >>We may be able to get in a few things, but the masses will never >>have time to study theosophy or any other philosophy. >> >>Jerry S. >>Member, TI > >Not only, that (we won't. we can't.), but *why*? >Why do we need to make Theosophy reach the masses? Knowing about Theosophy >isn't going to change the world, not even if all the world knew about it. > >I suppose we could quibble here about the semantics - I have used the words >"knowing about Theosophy", while Doss said "reach the masses". Perhaps we >*can* make Theosophy reach the masses by engaging in "good works". Perhaps >the Theosophical Order of Service has actually got the right idea .... by >showing the action that comes from the ideal of "brotherhood" we can show >the world part of what Theosophy is about, and lead on from there. > >But I still question the need to reach the masses. > >Kathleen Dixon. Whatever way we can expose "Theosophy" to the "masses", has IMHO, to be done by each one of us in our individual capacity. I am not talking about -- globes, chains, and all the nitty gritty details of cosmogenesis etc. My personal emphasis is one how the knowledge of T can help us in our day to day activities. As Einar mentioned, we can talk about the T principles/ideas without using any of the technical jargon, yet show the practical application of it. If even one simple idea can be transferred to another person, it may in turn do a lot of good to others with whom this person comes into contact. Each one of us can be very creative in our own way. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 23:02:26 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Gurus - K's Discussion Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130050226.0072bca0@mail.eden.com> At 02:43 PM 1/29/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss quoted Krishnamurti: > >> The guru who teaches you the method of independent thinking does not >> exist. Do not say, "My particular guru teaches me that." That is an absurd >> way of getting out of it. There is no method, no system; there is no guru >> who can liberate you. > >I'm glad you have found Krishnamurti's words to be helpful, Doss. I don't >criticize that, but I have to say that the above is misleading. > >There are many examples of ethical gurus who do teach their chelas independent >thinking. They were strict in some of their chelas formative years, but >respected their volition and trained them to be independent. To list a few, >contemporary and historical: Sai Baba, Paramahansa Yogananda, >Ramakrishna. Compared to the "fat gurus" who exploit people, they are vastly >fewer in number. Today, I would say that one's chances of meeting an ethical >guru are not far from zero. But that doesn't mean that one can't learn from >from the ethical few. I find tremendous value in reading Yogananda, who >certainly developed admirably under his guru, Yukteswar. > >No method or no system? One has to start somewhere. A method or system is not >the end in itself, true. Yogic exercises have for thousands of years been the >means to an end. They can become "non-living", empty procedures if one does >not unite with the "spirit" in them. But if one correctly follows a guru's >teachings, he is not merely mechanically going through the motions. He is >becoming aware of where they lead to, namely, one's own realization. > >My previously posted example of teaching someone tennis by showing him typical >strokes, racket grips, follow through, etc., is a simple illustration. These >steps get the student in touch with his body, with his natural >inclinations. Most of us are not in touch with our "natural" inclinations. >If we were, we wouldn't need instruction. > >In the same way that you offer structure to a child initially, you have to >offer it to a person who has not united with his inner structure yet. > I understand your point of view. I am yet to find a Guru who meets "my" requirements. I am very very cautious because I do not want to fall victim of the famous dictum: "blind leading the blind an both falling into the ditch." MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 23:12:09 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: An example Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130051209.0072abf0@mail.eden.com> Here is an example of how I apply T/t in daily life. I find it is important that when we deal with or communicate with another person both should be on the same level. I may be rich or famous or intelligent or scholarly or have high academic achievement or be in a highly regarded profession or old or have any other desirable attribute. The other person may or may not have any of the attributes. If I am say super duper Programmer, when I deal with any one else not dealing with a programming problem or question, tell that person that I am a programmer only when I am sitting in front of the computer terminal and writing the code or doing something relating to programming. At *all* other times, I am just a human being like every one else. So every one of us is important no matter what we do for living or what our other accomplishments are. This makes one humble. When I explain this to others I deal with - friends and strangers alike -- they are able easily understand it and makes it easy to communicate with. Thought I should share this example. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 07:13:43 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: HPB's Politics Message-ID: <32fe48af.3357235@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> I ran across the following quote from one of HPB's articles, entitled "What Are the Theosophists?" in the first "Theosophist," published in October, 1879: "Unconcerned about politics; hostile to the insane dreams of Socialism and of Communism, which it abhors--as both are but disguised conspiracies of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour; the Society cares but little about the outward human management of the material world. The whole of its aspirations are directed towards the occult truths of the visible and invisible worlds. Whether the physical man be under the rule of an empire or a republic, concerns only the man of matter. His body may be enslaved; as to his soul, he has the right to give to his rulers the proud answer of Socrates to his judges. They have no sway over the inner man." Although I agree with her conclusion that Socialism and Communism are evil (due to their being extremes, not due to their not having anything good about them), I find the first two phrases hard to reconcile. In the very same sentence, she says that the Theosophical Society is unconcerned with politics and hostile to what I have always considered to be political philosophies. The rest of the quote makes its lack of concern for politics clear, but how else would Communism and Socialism be categorized? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 00:14:42 -0700 (MST) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: <199701300714.AAA14198@snowden.micron.net> Kathleen writes: >Not only, that (we won't. we can't.), but *why*? >Why do we need to make Theosophy reach the masses? Are not "the masses" you and me? Right now, a mother is grief-stricken, wondering why her child has just been murdered and why God would allow it. Is she not "the masses?" An uneducated young man makes it possible for you to safely dine at your favorite restaurant by going in every day to wash the dishes, and he prides himself on a job well done. Is he not "the masses?" A young girl sits alone in her room crying because no one at school will play with her. Is she not "the masses?" The masses are not just some obscure, fuzzy horde, but real people - real people looking for answers, guidance, ideas. All of us are searching for the same thing. All of us need the same thing. Being educated, or intelligent, does not make one spiritual, or even capable of understanding spiritual axioms. The greatest utterings of Truth have come from those who never read a book, or went to a university, or held down a job. It is imperative that people share with other people what they have learned. Those of us who have been exposed to T/theosophy have been able to do so only because someone else decided to pass it on. Those of us who claim to be T/theosophists didn't invent T/theosophy - why should we now wonder if others should have the same opportunity and information we do? I don't think we will suffer the same fate of dear Prometheus if we decide to share our 'fire' with others. Where would we be if he had decided to hog it all? > Knowing about Theosophy >isn't going to change the world, not even if all the world knew about it. Are you so sure about that? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 06:29:35 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: HPB's Politics Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130122935.006a7ce0@mail.eden.com> At 02:19 AM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >I ran across the following quote from one of HPB's articles, entitled >"What Are the Theosophists?" in the first "Theosophist," published in >October, 1879: > >"Unconcerned about politics; hostile to the insane dreams of Socialism >and of Communism, which it abhors--as both are but disguised >conspiracies of brutal force and sluggishness against honest labour; >the Society cares but little about the outward human management of the >material world. The whole of its aspirations are directed towards the >occult truths of the visible and invisible worlds. Whether the >physical man be under the rule of an empire or a republic, concerns >only the man of matter. His body may be enslaved; as to his soul, he >has the right to give to his rulers the proud answer of Socrates to >his judges. They have no sway over the inner man." > >Although I agree with her conclusion that Socialism and Communism are >evil (due to their being extremes, not due to their not having >anything good about them), I find the first two phrases hard to >reconcile. In the very same sentence, she says that the Theosophical >Society is unconcerned with politics and hostile to what I have always >considered to be political philosophies. The rest of the quote makes >its lack of concern for politics clear, but how else would Communism >and Socialism be categorized? > >From the beginning, TS as an organization has always kept itself out of politics all over the world. HPB has repeatedly said (I am quoting from memory) that real change can be accomplished only by changing the attitudes and ideas of man/woman from within. Any change externally is not going to solve the basic human problem. >From that point of view neither communism nor socialism is a solution. Just by 2 cents. Your mileage and direction may vary. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 06:32:13 -0600 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130123213.0068bc08@mail.eden.com> At 02:19 AM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >Kathleen writes: > >>Not only, that (we won't. we can't.), but *why*? >>Why do we need to make Theosophy reach the masses? > >Are not "the masses" you and me? Right now, a mother is grief-stricken, >wondering why her child has just been murdered and why God would allow it. >Is she not "the masses?" An uneducated young man makes it possible for you >to safely dine at your favorite restaurant by going in every day to wash the >dishes, and he prides himself on a job well done. Is he not "the masses?" >A young girl sits alone in her room crying because no one at school will >play with her. Is she not "the masses?" The masses are not just some >obscure, fuzzy horde, but real people - real people looking for answers, >guidance, ideas. All of us are searching for the same thing. All of us >need the same thing. Being educated, or intelligent, does not make one >spiritual, or even capable of understanding spiritual axioms. The greatest >utterings of Truth have come from those who never read a book, or went to a >university, or held down a job. > >It is imperative that people share with other people what they have learned. >Those of us who have been exposed to T/theosophy have been able to do so >only because someone else decided to pass it on. Those of us who claim to >be T/theosophists didn't invent T/theosophy - why should we now wonder if >others should have the same opportunity and information we do? I don't >think we will suffer the same fate of dear Prometheus if we decide to share >our 'fire' with others. Where would we be if he had decided to hog it all? > > >> Knowing about Theosophy >>isn't going to change the world, not even if all the world knew about it. > > >Are you so sure about that? > > >Kym Wonderful post. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 19:43:21 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Answer to Daniel Caldwell Message-ID: <199701301315.IAA12963@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Michael > > > Let me conclude in saying that whether Karma, reincarnation or other > Theosophic principles are true or not, they instill a sense of > responsibility in those who belief in them in the right way. I am not > opposed to them as a popular faith therefore. If the myth of the masters > helped to introduce them it has served its purpose. > After all: what religion can do without myth? What is your purpose and personal satisfaction in "debunking" the the Masters? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:35:04 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Condition of the TS in 1925 Message-ID: <199701301315.IAA12971@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins > > JHE > The history of the LCC is so intertwined with the TS that I hold > little hope for it either. CWL's and GSA's idea for the LCC was > for it to be the vehicle for the new religion brought forward by > the world teacher (Krishnamurti). As someone had mentioned > before on theos-l, being active in the LCC, ES, Co-Masonry and > the Egyptian Rite are to this day expected of those who wish to > find themselves in the inner group that really runs the TS. In > the eyes of those ruling Bishops, this remains the one important > function of the LCC. IMO, if the LCC is to survive and grow, it > will have to dissociate itself from the TS and find its own > purpose for existance. It's past history and birth is intertwined with TS, but the public face, lately, is one of independence from TS. If you look at their web page, their no mention of TS at all. http://199.171.97.168/English/Organizations/LCC.GB/LCC.html I'm not sure I understand you about the one important function of the LCC. To provide bishops who will then be leaders of TS? Very few bishops or priests that I know have much to do with the other groups - they're too busy trying to make a living, keep a church running and have time for their families. What I have heard is that the church exists in case the NEXT world teacher comes and want to use it, which sounds like that person was still looking towards the past. As for new associations, there is a rather large congregation in Fairfield, Iowa, near Maharishi's school that is filled with members who publicly espouse both Liberal Catholicism and Maharishi's philosophy. > JHE > This "set of beliefs" idea is the great schizophrenia of the TS > that Annie Besant and CWL had so much trouble over. Ernest Wood > talks about it in his book. All of that "inner government" > authority that CWL devised in 1908 -- for which he and Besant > became the mouthpiece -- was in direct contradiction to the > freedom of thought ideals established by HPB, HSO and WQJ. It is > one of the really interesting dynamics that made the TS to crazy > during the Besant/Leadbeater years. Besant would on the one hand > preach freedom of thought and then push people out of the TS who > disagreeded with her. > You're right. I knew there was something strange about what had been going on there but I couldn't see it clearly or put it into words. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:52:52 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: More Responses to Tom Message-ID: <33259c6f.24796879@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry S. wrote: >Tom: >>If I jump off the Grand Canyon, I do not decide that I will fall. The >>law of gravity exists independently of anything I can do and >>regardless of whether or not I am aware of it. >Not altogether true, Tom. The so-called "law of gravity" is but one >of many social agreements that we monads made when we came >here. I am not aware of a reason to believe that. The idea that these laws are fixed, universal, and eternal makes the most sense to me, with the possibility of a higher being deciding them for us being the second most likely. >>The perception of them is real. They are not. > Anything unreal cannot be perceived. Things are >perceived because they are real. You might even say that >perception is a test for reality. What would the word "imaginary" mean, if there is no such thing as a perception that is not identical to reality? >>If an hallucination is real, the term "mistaken perception" has no >>meaning. > It could mean that our perception has changed. It could >also mean that our perception is not in agreement with society. >"Hallucination" means that we experience something that no one >else experiences. What is seen is nonetheless real. If I perceived a bridge across the Grand Canyon and tried to walk on it, and instead fell in, in what sense would the bridge have been "real" and why would it be wrong to refer to that perception of the bridge as mistaken? >>If I thought that there was no such thing as the >>Theosophical Society, I would be just as truthful as someone else who >>thought there was. The word "truth" would be meaningless. > "Truth" means different things to differnt people. It usually >means whatever we experience. That's not at all what I mean by it. No one has any choice about what truth is. It can only be discovered, not decided. >The human mind always tries to >fit our experience into some kind of model or mental system--today >called a worldview. When our worldview matches our experience, >we call this truth or reality. However, our experiences always keep >changing, and so our worldview must change, and with it our sense >of reality or truth changes as well. That perception of truth changes does not mean that truth changes with it. You are defining away the possibility of error. >>It exists as a perception, but not necessarily as reality. > Here is apparently where we have our real disagreement. I >can't imagine how anyone can perceive something that doesn't >exist. It has to exist in order to be perceived. If I perceive a unicorn, the components of that perception must have some reality. I know what a horn is. I know what a horse is. By putting together components of what I know, my perception of a unicorn is possible. But that doesn't make it accurate. >Perception is reality. Perception is a subset of reality. >As our perception changes (hopefully toward the spiritual) >so our reality changes as well. There is no such thing as "our reality," unless it means our perception of reality. >Thoughts and ideas are real >things on the inner planes, even those that have no physical >manifestation or counterpart. I agree. All perceptions are objectively real. But not only are they not all accurate, I would go so far as to say that none of them are perfectly and completely accurate, but are all partially so, to unique degrees. >>I find the idea that the law of karma changes as my perception of it >>changes to be very far-fetched. That would mean that there is no >>objective law of karma. > What do you mean by objective? The law of karma is objective, as is everything else, in that errors in perceiving it accurately are possible. >The general agreements that the monads make between each other >during each life-wave, for each Globe, establishes the laws, rules, >and policies of that life-wave and Globe. I infer that you mean that the law of karma is unique to each planetary chain. How might it differ in other planetary chains from ours? >This then becomes the >collective karma for that life-wave. This is all done telepathically >by monads or spiritual beings--which we humans are but the >temporary human expression. Something doesn't seem right about referring to how the individual of which one is conscious relates to the monad of which one is not conscious. I don't see how they cannot be referred to as separate entities. I have no awareness of this monad which is distinct from the individual of whom I am aware. Assuming they are not separate entities, this relates in an interesting way to how dogma and authority are considered to be evil. How could one who is not aware of one's monad become aware of it without trusting someone else as an authority? No effort to try to be aware of it would or even could be made without faith in others who say it exists. >Adepts are bad sports, sometimes, because they are >able to break the rules with impunity (ie., they can act karmaless). >However, like all bad sports, they are usually shunned by the >other players, and they do have a price to pay for their boldness. Why cannot this price be considered to be their karma? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:48:51 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Answer to Daniel Caldwell Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970129174851.006e04cc@xs4all.nl> At 03:35 13-01-97 -0500, Daniel wrote: > >In a recent posting on Theos-l, Michael Rogg wrote in part: > >"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." > >On Michael's WWW homepage, he says that "proof of their [the Masters'] >existence has never been found." > >I have a question, Michael. Have you had a chance to read K. Paul >Johnson's THE MASTERS REVEALED and my critique [HOUSE OF CARDS] >of his thesis on the Masters M. and K.H? In both his book and my critique >you will find testimony by Henry Olcott and others on their encounters with >these two Masters. How do you explain these experiences especially in light >of your statement that "communicators born out of fantasy may take on quite >a solid >appearance"? I have studied the history of spiritualism for more than >twenty years >and I have never found accounts in the spiritualistic literature that would >parallel >the testimonies concerning the Theosophical Masters. K. Paul Johnson >and I do not see eye to eye on many things, but we do, I believe, agree that >there >is evidence indicating that at least the Master "Koot Hoomi" was a living flesh >and blood person and not some ectoplasmic manifestation materialized through >Blavatsky's "mediumship." > First of all: My reference to figures born out of fantasy taking on quite a solid appearance, referred to Canadian "Philip" and "Hamilton" experiments. As these materialisations usually occur in seance conditions, I do not think that they apply to physical appearances of "Masters". In the light of the heated debate going on I have perused TMR and HoC. I salute K. Paul Johnson for bringing together so much biographical information of the personalities HPB came in contact with. I think his work important because it attempts to throw light on the evolution of the myth of the Masters in HPB's'mind. I can only offer my sympathy to both KPJ and his opponent being carried away by their ostensible right, but even more to the subscribers who were subjected to their arguments. PLease permit me to sum up my position. A. Scholars have hardly ever accepted HPB's version of Eastern religio-philosophical traditions. B. HPB's presentation of truth therefore hinges on acceptance of her authorities: Masters of Wisdom of a White Brotherhood residing in far away Tibet.. It surprises me that KPJ, after having drawn out the carpet underneath the Masters, is not detracted "one iota from the truth of the principles enunciated by her or the alleged Masters", because it implies absolute credence in her interpretation of Western and Eastern esoteric traditions. C. Nowhere independent proof of existence of such Masters has been found, if one discounts testimony of those involved in the apparent hoax. One of the greatest authorities, Mme. Alexandra David-Neel, gave a scathing judgment. Time and again I have brought up myself the question of the masters with informed people like John Blofeld, and Tibetan priests, some of whom close to the Dalai Lama. I met nothing but amazement of such gullibility on the part of Westerners. Baird Spalding with his Masters of Wisdom (or something like that) also cashed in on the credulity of Western audiences, not to speak of Lobsang Rampa. D. Since then never a body of teachings resembling that of Theosophy has ever been traced in the Far East. Elements yes, but the whole complex system with its interpretation? E. The Masters'/HPB' teachings were a typical product of the nineteenth century when the accent was on the intellect. It complied with the popular saying: "knowledge is power". I do not see Mahatmas like Ramakrishna, or Ramana Maharishi proclaiming such intellectual truths. Moreover Indian guru's use to frown upon performing physical paranormal phenomena. They occurred, but not intentionally. In fact such super human beings as described by HPB's have never been found. Remains the question of who perpetrated this myth? I value KPJ's work to bring forward persons who could have stood model. Yet we remain with the question of how exactly were HPB's devotees tricked? Who wrote the Mahatma letters? We know from spiritualist history that aiutomatic writing may differ completely from that of the medium. Although handwriting expertise has been applied, I wonder whether stylometry, with which style characteristics may be traced, would give any clue. This software-instrument revealed years ago that not all letters in the New Testament were written by their supposed authors. For me the Masters were either split-personalities in HPB's mind or possibly spiritualist' communicators/entities, or on a physical plane: people impersonating Theosophist Masters. Explanations will have to be found for their physical appearance to devotees. If those close to HPB were convinced of the existence of the Masters they may have been either deceived by their own fantasy or by trickery by confidants. One explanation may be that HPB tricked one half of them with the aid of the other half and vice versa. It will be difficult at this stage to establish who corroborated exactly where and when and what valid excuse was employed. I see HPB as the prime mover. Her mind was a sponge having absorbed all her childhood occult experiences and impressions. One clue is her pleasure in keeping her childhood friends spellbound by mystery stories. On top of that she was influenced during her travels by people who may have exaggerated their powers and knowledge. All this at a time that oriental religious works created quite a stir when they came available in translation. I see it as the creativity of her subconscious mind to mould it into a coherent doctrine, a popularization of western and eastern spiritual traditions into a religious faith for the general public. My admiration increases when I realize that she must have led quite a double life to perpetrate all the trickery necessary to foster credence in the idea that she was a messenger of a White Brotherhood. Psychologically, she was rewarded by the respect she craved for, combined with a true calling to serve mankind. As for her followers, Olcott c.s. would have never left a trace in history if it were not for the acceptance of the myth of the White Brotherhood. Jehova's Witnesses must feel similarly uplifted when they are told to receive salvation by spreading their truth. Theosophy is a typical product of a Western mind, no Oriental would have conceived of a dogmatic system like that of nineteenth century Theosophy. Paramount in Eastern traditions is the belief that the intellect stands in the way of apprehending reality. Zen Buddhism went farthest in breaking the mind with its severe discipline and absurd riddles, koans. In Indian ashrams salvation through knowledge would have sounded equally ridiculous. >Have you read these accounts by Olcott and others? And how do you explain >these accounts? You raise good questions but your narratives on Theos-l >and on your homepage about HPB, mediumship, the Masters and spiritualism >are couched in very vague, non-specific language and do not grapple with >the detailed accounts as given by Olcott and other witnesses to HPB's >phenomena and the encounters with the Mahatmas. It is a personal evaluation. Meanwhile I have revised slightly my pages to allow for real personalities in HPB's life having stood model for the Masters. As stated above, the Masters could well have been split-personalities. After all she had a mediamistic mind which has a tendency for such creations. I have no explanations for the detailed accounts of encounters with Masters except that confidants of HPB acted out the part, or that the witnesses simply lied or fantasized. We can only guess, what excuse HPB gave followers to play a part in the hoax for the good of the Work. As to fidelity to truth in religious matters: to what length do not followers of a faith go to further it? Letters in the New Testament were written under assumed names. Everyone knows that the Wisdom of Solomon was not written by this biblical figure, etc. etc. > Some of this rich, >detailed testimony has been published in my 1991 book titled >THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY. I'll try to get hold of it, but I doubt if at this stage we can ever discover the complete truth. Unfortunately we do not have a full confession of anyone of HPB's associates. > >In the last year I have been studying the remarkable mediumship of >the Reverend Francis Monck, a contemporary of Blavatsky's. You will have read that he was sent to prison after discovery of a piece of muslin on a white frame which the medium was accused of having used to fake materilizations. However, there is a body of important evidence in his favour in particular that of archdeacon Colley. It is well known of otherwise reliable mediums to have resorted to trickery. A study of the mediumistic mind such as in Prof. Jung's Psychiatric Studies: On the psychology and pathology of so-called occult phenoena. I may try to >post on Theos-l some of the accounts of his materializations in full light. >I do agree that most Theosophists and even Blavatsky students appear to >be uninformed about the history of spiritualism and its interrelationship with >the history of Theosophy and Blavatsky. Much of what is written on mediumship >and life after death in THE MAHATMAS LETTERS is not apparently fully appreciated >by students of these letters; I believe one of the reasons is the fact that most >students and readers of these letters do not have a good background >understanding >of spiritualism, its phenomena and teachings. For example, a careful reading of >LIGHT magazine during the years 1881-1895 is very informative for the student >of Blavatsky and Theosophy. I quite agree. > >What books on spiritualism would you (Michael) recommend for interested >Theos-l readers? I will try to post in the near future a number of "reference >books" which give good overviews and a great deal of detail on spiritualism, >its phenomena, its teachings, and its history. I find it difficult to make a choice as many describe a facet. I should like to see amongst them: As for its history: Brian Inglis: "Natural and Supernatural. A history of the paranormal." Spiritualism at the time of Theosophy's foundation: Olcott's "People from the other World" Emma Hardinge: "Modern American Spiritualism" (first published in 1870) As for the case for an afterlife: Prof.Hornell Hart: The Enigma of Survival. The case for and against an afterlife (Rider & Co.) On the wealth of sub-conscious fantasy/Communicators: Jane Roberts' books on the Seth control. Books on Edgar Cayce, Geraldine Cummins: "The scripts of Cleophas" (Acts of the New Testament elaborated) Dr.Robert Crookall. "The supreme adventure". Analyses of psychic communications.(James Clarke & Co.Ltd.) and "The interpretation of cosmic & mystical experiences". Leslie A.Shepard"s Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology gives a lot of valuable information, but it is expensive. > Let me conclude in saying that whether Karma, reincarnation or other Theosophic principles are true or not, they instill a sense of responsibility in those who belief in them in the right way. I am not opposed to them as a popular faith therefore. If the myth of the masters helped to introduce them it has served its purpose. After all: what religion can do without myth? Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:11:42 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Karma & Reality (to Tom) Message-ID: <3327ab69.28631413@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry S. wrote: >karma and gravity work differently on the other Globes of our chain, >because our agreements are different there. Were these agreements unanimous? If not, was the minority which disagreed forced to come along, anyway? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 06:29:08 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: To Doss Message-ID: Hi Doss, Thank you for your recent Krisnamurti posts. The more I read what he said, the more I like it. Also, his presentation is very clear, little of verbosity, full of meaning. There's nothing worse than writing that's elitist. I'm a Krisnamurti fan without even realizing it. I shall have to read more of his stuff. Actually, I've gotten quite a few good leads to sources from the theosophy lists. Excuse me while I go read. Respectfully, Thoa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 07:09:04 -0800 From: thoa@withoutwalls.com (Thoa Tran) Subject: Theosophy for the Masses Message-ID: Doss: >>Kathleen writes: >> >>>Not only, that (we won't. we can't.), but *why*? >>>Why do we need to make Theosophy reach the masses? >> >>Kym writes: >>Are not "the masses" you and me? Right now, a mother is grief-stricken, >>wondering why her child has just been murdered and why God would allow it. >>Is she not "the masses?" An uneducated young man makes it possible for you >>to safely dine at your favorite restaurant by going in every day to wash the >>dishes, and he prides himself on a job well done. Is he not "the masses?" >>A young girl sits alone in her room crying because no one at school will >>play with her. Is she not "the masses?" The masses are not just some >>obscure, fuzzy horde, but real people - real people looking for answers, >>guidance, ideas. All of us are searching for the same thing. All of us >>need the same thing. Being educated, or intelligent, does not make one >>spiritual, or even capable of understanding spiritual axioms. The greatest >>utterings of Truth have come from those who never read a book, or went to a >>university, or held down a job. >> >>It is imperative that people share with other people what they have learned. >>Those of us who have been exposed to T/theosophy have been able to do so >>only because someone else decided to pass it on. Those of us who claim to >>be T/theosophists didn't invent T/theosophy - why should we now wonder if >>others should have the same opportunity and information we do? I don't >>think we will suffer the same fate of dear Prometheus if we decide to share >>our 'fire' with others. Where would we be if he had decided to hog it all? >> >> >>> Knowing about Theosophy >>>isn't going to change the world, not even if all the world knew about it. >> >> >>Are you so sure about that? >> >> >>Kym >Wonderful post. >..doss Ditto. Not wanting to reach the masses is another example of being too emotionally lazy to try. It's easier to stick with your own elite group than to try to reach out to others since there is too much emotional involvement and flexible thinking associated with that. I switched from majoring in engineering to art because I could not stand engineering's coldness and rigidity. I had fond memories of my 7th grade art teacher patiently and warmly teaching us art methods. When I went off to art school, I came face to face with elitist attitudes, particularly at the graduate level. The professors do not connect with the students and only communicate through verbose artspeak criticism. During critiques, the professors do not care about student work, only in hearing each other discuss artspeak. If a student excelled, it is not by any professor's help. I got my degrees, but with this sickening feeling in my stomach. It is only by forgetting all that artspeak and remembering art in my childhood, that I'm able to paint with joy. It is through such experiences that when I sense elitism, I cringe. Thoa From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 10:01:00 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: To Doss Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970130160100.007210a4@mail.eden.com> At 09:29 AM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Doss, > >Thank you for your recent Krisnamurti posts. The more I read what he said, >the more I like it. Also, his presentation is very clear, little of >verbosity, full of meaning. There's nothing worse than writing that's >elitist. I'm a Krisnamurti fan without even realizing it. I shall have to >read more of his stuff. Actually, I've gotten quite a few good leads to >sources from the theosophy lists. Excuse me while I go read. > >Respectfully, >Thoa > Hi Thoa Many of the things K said are the same that HPB and Buddha said. May be he is using a different simple language. Some years ago when my six year old son watched a K tape, I asked him if he learnt anything. His response was that K says don't listen anyone. Make up your own mind. Have you seen any of K's video tapes? I have found them very interesting. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:14:46 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Type of members Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970130171446.006d4084@xs4all.nl> Greg Bartle wrote: >'d like to ask if anyone knows if there have ever been any studies or >histories done of Theosophy from below, examining the many and varied >people attracted *to* the movement instead of from the top, from the >point of view of the elite few that have lead the movement? I've not >seen such work, but I suspect we might find that - despite the worst >that has been done by leaders in one direction - many individuals have >come and gone in the ranks who found their own ways to balance head >and heart and hand. > I have not seen such study either on Theosophists. I suppose that it would have to be a broader one as for what reasons people joined a particular faith. On my page "On the psychology of spiritual movements" (http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/psymove.html) I have tried to condense types of members as follows: "There are many types of members, each with their own motivation. First of all there the ones who have been moved to do so out of a genuine spiritual aspiration, prepared to sacrifice. Other members may have been searching for a truth behind the dreadful aspects of life around them and an escape therefrom. People who wrestle with a psychological problem seek (unconsciously) a key or solution to it in a particular teaching or discipline. Then there are those that did so out of a feeling of isolation and loneliness. Lack of true companionship may have made them long to be taken up in a fraternity of kindred souls. People will be drawn to a brotherhood whose aims are within their reach of comprehension and nearest to their hearts. A religious background may make them veer towards a sect that accomodates nostalgia, like the Jehova Witnesses. For younger people it may be an escape from having to enter into a harsh materialistic society. They are in an idealistic life-cycle, prepared to give up their study and career for a worthy cause. Some older people can never make up their minds and wander from one cause to another. The weaker the individual's independance, the more will he be tied to the group. Members who understand group-mechanisms, prepared to cope with them in order to direct their attention to the spirit, will benefit most as they are selective in picking up the cream of what is given and taking the rest with a grain of salt." etc. If I am permitted to share my childhood memories of prewar days in Holland of the type of members I met. My parents had quite a miserable life in the years of depression. We had to live on hand-outs of the government. My parents' marriage had turned sour. For my mother life had lost its meaning. Until her sister, a widow left with two children and no income, visited a Theosophic lecture. She became so enthralled by it, that she took my mother along as well, much to the chagrin of my father. The grand vision of Theosophy changed their entire outlook on life. They were now partakers in a truth nobody around them understood. In their humble ways they had become unique persons as small time messengers of the Masters. My mother's sister saved pennies from her meagre food budget to subscribe to an edition of the Secret Doctrine. I myself was taken to the Lotus circle of the Point Loma Society (as opposed to the Adyar Society, which was more highbrow). The members were drawn from all ranks of society. Women taking the lead (one saved on electricty and heating by going to the public library to study), but also a doctor, an inspired school teacher, a salesman etc. During the war Theosophy had to go underground. In indignation some Theosophists sewed on a Jewish star to show their solidarity with the persecuted Jews and had to pay dearly. In summing up, Theosophy brought a faith to people in their humdrum lives during the depression. They were just a few of the members drawn to Theosophy for all sorts of reasons. As to myself it instilled a sense of purpose, bordering on invulnerability. When I went to the Far East quite young, after the war was over, I expected to meet a Master at every street-corner. But that is another story. MICHAEL Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:21:04 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Reaching "The Masses" Message-ID: <32F102A5.2C91@withoutwalls.com> Kym wrote: >Are not "the masses" you and me? >It is imperative that people share with other people what they have learned. >Those of us who have been exposed to T/theosophy have been able to do so >only because someone else decided to pass it on. Those of us who claim to >be T/theosophists didn't invent T/theosophy - why should we now wonder if >others should have the same opportunity and information we do? I don't >think we will suffer the same fate of dear Prometheus if we decide to share >our 'fire' with others. Where would we be if he had decided to hog it all? I've said it before so I'll say it again. In one lifetime, unless you are a public figure, a celebrity or someone with a public platform, the number of actual people you will ever personally come into contact with is relatively small. Our personal circles are really pretty limited. It is in this arena that most notions of putting "theosophy-in-action", "reaching the masses" in a practical day-to-day way, "embodying" the teaching, etc. can easily take place, as Doss, Einar and Kym have shown. This does not however negate the necessity of preserving the complete body of teachings. Without them, their study and elucidation, newcomers who thirst for deeper understanding will eventually come up empty. Besides a personal outreach approach, there also needs to be some "official" treasury or repository for the keeping and study of the body of knowledge that has evolved, as well as an "open-minded" policy for putting forth new ideas and furtherence of research. I would hate to see the day when the only access to theosophy was the few scrappy copies in some dinky college library or whatever's left at the Barnes and Noble. 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, 30 Jan 1997 15:27:06 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The roots of 1925 Message-ID: <970130135956_783711640@emout18.mail.aol.com> A pity that you can't put a sound file on a mailing list. The Twilight Zone theme would be highly appropriate. Or how about a joyous rendering of "The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum." Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:37:59 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Mystery Message-ID: <32F114A2.6DB0@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >Something doesn't seem right about referring to how the individual of >which one is conscious relates to the monad of which one is not >conscious. I don't see how they cannot be referred to as separate >entities. I have no awareness of this monad which is distinct from >the individual of whom I am aware. Assuming they are not separate >entities, this relates in an interesting way to how dogma and >authority are considered to be evil. How could one who is not aware >of one's monad become aware of it without trusting someone else as an >authority? No effort to try to be aware of it would or even could be >made without faith in others who say it exists. As to developing awareness: If you were to go deep within the structure of the "individuality" THAT YOU ARE you would eventually find an interior frontier within it's center, beyond which, (i.e., further in) you as an individual person do not identify. A veritable mystery in the middle of who you think you are. To stay there might be to see the Great Light. To venture further inward is to vanish into the Great Deep. To return and assume again the personal vestment is to be reborn, never to be again the same. I am that I am. As to origins: Some earnestly asked the question "who am I?" Others did not. As to dogma, faith and authority: You can hear about it. You can talk about it. You can think about it. But the actual journey no one can make for you. No one can leap for you. "If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!" "What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the Son of man, that thou visiteth him?" "Faith is the substance of things not seen" Void = Pleroma Despite everything to the contrary, Yang is identical to Yin. Love is the key. Deep, deep mystery. 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, 30 Jan 1997 17:36:58 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Reality (To Tom) Message-ID: <19970130223904.AAA26272@JerrySchueler> Tom: >I am not aware of a reason to believe that. The idea that these laws >are fixed, universal, and eternal makes the most sense to me, with the >possibility of a higher being deciding them for us being the second >most likely. The "law of gravity" is not a law at all. Einstein demonstrated that gravity is a characteristic of matter in space, not a thing-in-itself. There is no gravity where there is no matter. Thus gravity changes as matter changes. It can't be "universal" or "eternal" because matter isn't. If you like the idea of God making it all up, then go for it. Thats not much different than the notion that Manus or Cosmocrators did it all. I prefer to think that our spiritual Selves brought it all together, or at least had a say in it. >What would the word "imaginary" mean, if there is no such thing as a >perception that is not identical to reality? Imaginary means somethine that we perceive, that is not shared by the perception of others. Its part of our personal reality. Reality, like karma and the unconscious, is both personal and collective. >If I perceived a bridge across the Grand Canyon and tried to walk on >it, and instead fell in, in what sense would the bridge have been >"real" and why would it be wrong to refer to that perception of the >bridge as mistaken? This is a mistake known in the occult world as confounding the planes. The bridge that you see, and others don't see, is astral rather than physical--a physical bridge would be a shared perception. We get into all kinds of trouble when we perceive inner (astral) reality and mistake it for outer (physical) reality. >That's not at all what I mean by it. No one has any choice about what >truth is. It can only be discovered, not decided. What is "discovered" if not experienced? We all see our own truth, and we all see our own world. I have the right to decide what I consider to be truth or false. You do too. Sometimes your truth and my truth may agree. Sometimes not. We will tend to agree a lot on physical things. But there is less agreement as we rise upward through the astral and mental planes. Above the Abyss we will have agreement again. >That perception of truth changes does not mean that truth changes with >it. You are defining away the possibility of error. Depends on how you define error. I define it as anything that is replaced with something new. As our sense of reality changes, we get a new sense of reality, the old being labeled as an error. Your reality may be my error, or vice versa. When I am dreaming, the dream seems very real to me. After I wake, I can label it error. This is pretty much what we all do. >If I perceive a unicorn, the components of that perception must have >some reality. I know what a horn is. I know what a horse is. By >putting together components of what I know, my perception of a unicorn >is possible. But that doesn't make it accurate. It will not be accurate in the sense that such a being does not exist on the physical plane. But it would be accurate in the sense that such a being exists on the mental plane, else you would not have been able to invision it. You seem to keep wanting to limit reality to the physical plane. The physical plane is only the tip of a large iceberg, so to speak. >>Perception is reality. >Perception is a subset of reality. Well, at least you seem to be getting there. In a technical sense, we each have our own reality, and each person's reality is a subset. Where two people's subsets overlap, we have shared experiences. Those areas that do not overlap, we call imagination, but this is only a word for our personal reality. >All perceptions are objectively real. But not only are they >not all accurate, I would go so far as to say that none of them are >perfectly and completely accurate, but are all partially so, to unique >degrees. What do you mean by "accurate?" Do you mean that others have to agree to it? You seem to be saying that our overlapping areas, our collective reality, is real but our personal reality is unreal. Do you think that your dreams are unreal too? >The law of karma is objective, as is everything else, in that errors >in perceiving it accurately are possible. Again, I don't know what you mean by accurately. As our perception changes, we label what was true as false, and assume the new stuff is "accurate." But this only lasts until the next change. There is no objective accuracy anywhere. There is no subjective accuracy anywhere either, because our sense of identity changes along with our sense of reality. We each have a sense of reality, a sense of identity, and sense of time, and so on. But all of these things change. >I infer that you mean that the law of karma is unique to each >planetary chain. How might it differ in other planetary chains from >ours? Depends on how we want to define the law of karma. If we define it as causality, then it may not change much. If we define it as some kind of divine justice, then it will change a great deal. However, even as causality, I am a firm believer in chaos, or what Jung called synchronicity as as acausal principle and thus not subject to karma except in a collective sense. Karma is not the only game in town. It can be suspended, delayed, precipitated, and eliminated. When defined as Order, karma is deterministic and logical. Chaos is undeterministic and illogical. Karma always exists with Chaos, just like subjective always exists with objective. >Something doesn't seem right about referring to how the individual of >which one is conscious relates to the monad of which one is not >conscious. I don't see how they cannot be referred to as separate >entities. They usually are referred to as separate entities. In Enochian Magic, the monadic or spiritual part of ourselves is called the Holy Guardian Angel. Actually, the whole idea of Angels began by the perception of our spiritual counterpart being a separate entity. But those who have contacted their spiritual Self, report that it is not really separate at all. For us, the reality of such beings are separate and external, while for the world's mystics, they are not separate at all. Whose reality is correct? I think they both are. >I have no awareness of this monad which is distinct from >the individual of whom I am aware. For this I am sorry. Some day, perhaps. Until you become aware of it, I doubt that you will accept much of what I am saying. >How could one who is not aware of one's monad become >aware of it without trusting someone else as an >authority? No effort to try to be aware of it would or even could be >made without faith in others who say it exists. I agree that we have to begin with faith. At some point, though, faith has to give way to experience. Actually, effort is not always necessary. Some people get this automatically, without effort. Presumably they developed the ability in a past life. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 17:46:49 EST From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Pryse's story Message-ID: <199701302246.RAA03279@leo.vsla.edu> Quite a fascinating piece, Doss, thanks for posting it. The part that interests me most is the doctrine that HPB incarnated in the young man who obligingly vacated his body. Pryse seems to take a dim view of the claim of Judge that a portrait of said young man was actually of *his* overshadowing personality, "the rajah." But he doesn't make clear how Judge's claim dovetails with his own. If Judge himself was "overshadowed" by the rajah at the age of 7 or so, who was occupying the young man's vacated body until HPB took it over? What Indian state did she become rajah of? (That aspect of the legend dovetails rather nicely with my own reading of HPB's profound interest in Indian politics, not that I take any of this seriously.) This leads to a second quandary. I've had it hinted to me, and heard it repeated elsewhere, that the secret teaching within ULT about the Masters is that M. was HPB and K.H. was Judge. Can't make any sense of this in light of otherwise literalistic reading of HPB's claims they make. Has anyone else a clue on all this? Cheers PJ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:53:47 -0800 From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins Subject: The LCC Message-ID: <9701302253.AA27737@toto.csustan.edu> JHE >IMO, if the LCC is to survive and grow, it > will have to dissociate itself from the TS and find its own > purpose for existence. AEB >It's past history and birth is intertwined with TS, but the >public face, lately, is one of independence from TS. If you >look at their web page, their no mention of TS at all. JHE I'm happy to hear that the LCC is developing its own identity in your area. My experience with the LCC is from the Los Angeles and Ojai areas where the TS Bishops still run the churches. I do remember one person about ten years ago at Far Horizons camp who was involved in the LCC and was trying to compile a set of doctrines for it (under the auspices of the proper authorities of course). I remember that he personally regarded CWL's writings as ridiculous but was rather fond of Alice Bailey's. He lives in your neck of the woods now, so you may know him. AEB >I'm not sure I understand you about the one important >function of the LCC. To provide bishops who will then be >leaders of TS? Very few bishops or priests that I know have >much to do with the other groups - they're too busy trying to >make a living, keep a church running and have time for >their families. JHE I'm writing from the point of view of the inner group of the TS, not from the point of view of the LCC. Of course the LCC sees itself as a religious institution and sets its aims accordingly. On the other hand, for potential TS leaders to work their way up through the ranks of influence in the TS, they are expected to be involved in the LCC, Co-Masonry and the ER. This is why the current lawsuit over the Larkspur Co-Masonic split is considered so critical to the TS. Perhaps the LCC will also eventually split and the whole system in the TS will fall apart. AEB What I have heard is that the church exists in case the NEXT world teacher comes and want to use it, which sounds like that person was still looking towards the past. JHE Yes, that was the original reason for the LCC's existence. It was to be the vehicle for the new religion Krishnamurti was to bring into the world. Sounds like your informant is still expecting a world teacher. AEB As for new associations, there is a rather large congregation in Fairfield, Iowa, near Maharishi's school that is filled with members who publicly espouse both Liberal Catholicism and Maharishi's philosophy. JHE Great. I've noticed that the TS doesn't seem to be threatened by Maharishi philosophy. I wonder what would happen if Alice Bailey people filled the church. ------------------------------------------ |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: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:18:11 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: some new error Message-ID: <32F14819.7098@withoutwalls.com> Jerry wrote: >Depends on how you define error. I define it as anything >that is replaced with something new. As our sense of reality changes, >we get a new sense of reality, the old being labeled as an error. Your >reality may be my error, or vice versa. When I am dreaming, the dream >seems very real to me. After I wake, I can label it error. This is >pretty much what we all do. a bud changes into a blooming rose a chrysalis into a butterfly are the bud or chrysalis errors? is a "sense of reality" any different? 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, 30 Jan 1997 17:50:04 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: The other side of the coin Message-ID: <32F14FC5.71A5@withoutwalls.com> Tom wrote: >Assuming they are not separate entities, this relates in an interesting >way to how dogma and authority are considered to be evil. How could one >who is not aware of one's monad become aware of it without trusting someone >else as an authority? No effort to try to be aware of it would or even >could be made without faith in others who say it exists. Another way to think about this is to mull over the blessed fact that when people (like Buddha or Jesus) experienced this union their reaction was to get up on their feet and with love tell humanity about it, rather than just stay absorbed in it and "to hell with the rest of us". The most amazing fact to me IS their compassion. Without their loving effort where would we be? 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, 30 Jan 1997 17:45:43 -0800 (PST) From: Thoa Tran Subject: More mysteries Message-ID: <199701310145.RAA25046@proxy1.ba.best.com> If corn oil comes from corn, where does baby oil come from? If there is no God, who pops up the next Kleenex in the box? How did a fool and his money GET together? If nothing sticks to Teflon, how do they stick Teflon on the pan? How do they get a deer to cross at that yellow road sign? If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them? What's another word for thesaurus? Why do they sterilize the needles for lethal injections? Why is abbreviation such a long word? Why do kamikaze pilots wear helmets? How do you know when it's time to tune your bagpipes? Does 'virgin wool' come from sheep the shepherd hasn't caught yet? Does fuzzy logic tickle? Do blind Eskimos have seeing-eye sled dogs? Do radioactive cats have 18 half-lives? Why doesn't glue stick to the inside of the bottle? Can fat people go skinny-dipping? Can you be a closet claustrophobic? Is it possible to be totally partial? If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success? If the funeral procession is at night, do folks drive with the lights off? If a stealth bomber crashes in a forest, will it make a sound? If the cops arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain silent? If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages? When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? Should vegetarians eat animal crackers? Do cemetery workers prefer the graveyard shift? Do hungry crows have ravenous appetites? Why isn't "phonetic" spelled the way it sounds? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 19:25:52 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <199701310200.VAA03125@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins > I'm happy to hear that the LCC is developing its own identity in > your area. My experience with the LCC is from the Los Angeles > and Ojai areas where the TS Bishops still run the churches. I do > remember one person about ten years ago at Far Horizons camp who > was involved in the LCC and was trying to compile a set of > doctrines for it (under the auspices of the proper authorities of > course). I remember that he personally regarded CWL's writings > as ridiculous but was rather fond of Alice Bailey's. He lives in > your neck of the woods now, so you may know him. The two bishops that ran the Chicago church since 1971, one now deceased, were obviously Theosophists and included theosophy in their talks, but never actually mentioned any link with TS or encouraged it. There is a new bishop, consecrated in 1993, who is closely connected with TS and aggressively proselytizes TS to any members who have not joined TS. As I suspected, it depends on the individual's approach. But they've been battling about whether the LCC should be primarily Theosophical or Christian for decades. I'm not aware of the person you describe, unless he's a closet Baileyite. > AEB > >I'm not sure I understand you about the one important > >function of the LCC. To provide bishops who will then be > >leaders of TS? Very few bishops or priests that I know have > >much to do with the other groups - they're too busy trying to > >make a living, keep a church running and have time for > >their families. > > JHE > I'm writing from the point of view of the inner group of the TS, > not from the point of view of the LCC. Of course the LCC sees > itself as a religious institution and sets its aims accordingly. > On the other hand, for potential TS leaders to work their way up > through the ranks of influence in the TS, they are expected to be > involved in the LCC, Co-Masonry and the ER. The Emergency Room? :-) Well, those potential high-flyers must have working wives support them while they pursue this course, or they manage to function without sleep. Active holy orders would require their Sundays, not to mention clergy and vestry meetings. Co-M is at least several hours once a month in this area. I have no idea when the ES meets or how often. They also better be well off, as the clergy robes at the LCC have to be tailored to CWL's specs (unless you have a wife who is handy at sewing - but there's still the material. Linen is $10-15 a yard.) And in the Co-M, you pay more the higher you climb through the lodges. Is there a fee for ES? I strongly suspect that the requirements to be a part of all these groups were made at a time when people had more time. JHE >This is why the > current lawsuit over the Larkspur Co-Masonic split is considered > so critical to the TS. I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with TS is a potential threat? > Perhaps the LCC will also eventually > split and the whole system in the TS will fall apart. Numerous priests and clergy have gone off to start their own churches or join other independent ones. > AEB > As for new associations, there is a rather large congregation in > Fairfield, Iowa, near Maharishi's school that is filled with > members who publicly espouse both Liberal Catholicism > and Maharishi's philosophy. > > JHE > Great. I've noticed that the TS doesn't seem to be threatened by > Maharishi philosophy. I wonder what would happen if Alice Bailey > people filled the church. I'm not sure they'd be interested. BTW, I received Candle in the Sun today. Thank you, -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 03:11:45 -0000 From: Einar Adalsteinsson & ASB Subject: Practical Theosophy in simple language - to Martin Message-ID: <01BC0F24.8E874400@rvik-ppp-118.ismennt.is> ------ =_NextPart_000_01BC0F24.8E906BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Martin Euser wrote: (evidently my posting didn't make it to theos-l -=20 Einar brought this to my attention) So, let's give it another try :) Einar wrote: >My experience is that you can "wade" quite profound waters with people = =3D that are new to the subject, if you keep the discussion in a everyday = =3D language, and talk about it from a non-theoretical platform. I have conducted a series of courses for newcomers, which go through the = =3D essential and fundamental principles of Theosophy, without mentioning = =3D theosophy or the traditional technical terms. The trick, I have found, is to relate the whole thing to the everyday = =3D experiences, and take it from a psychological experiential viewpoint. = =3D Ad you have to make it practical and interesting, or no one will listen. Einar: could you give us one or two examples to illustrate your approach a bit more? Martin --------- Dear Martin, Here comes my contribution, necessary very limited in space and time at = this medium. Firstly these courses are about what would translate strictly as "Mind = Culture", but could go as Self-culture. To start wit I emphasize the = wisdom of the ancient=20 yoga, taking base in the definition by Patanjali, i.e. that real yoga = consists in=20 controlling or suppressing the thought-processes, thus learning to know = the inner=20 programming structure of ourselves and by that gaining control of every = situation=20 in our life. I introduce a few important technical terms, like the = principle of=20 oneness, the mystical experience, the pure awareness, and few terms we = use=20 when probing the working of the psyche. I use the division of Instincts, = Emotions, Feelings or Sensitivity, Thought-processes, Insight, etc.=20 I also use a model of the Conscious, the Unconscious and the = Super-conscious,=20 or better the Ultimate Unity of Consciousness.=20 I ascertain the "universal awareness model", which states that in our = innermost=20 being we are Pure Awareness, witnesses, rather than thinkers or doers, = and=20 certainly not our body, - that the "I" is unreal, a thought, a = collection of memories=20 over a long period of time, that we are really processes rather than = things. This is all followed up by relating it to daily living examples.=20 One important thing is to understand the difference between words, = Ideas,=20 hypothesis, opinions and believes, on the one hand and reality and "what = Is" on=20 the other hand. I tell them not to believe anything that I am telling = them, and I=20 explain for them why not. I have touched upon this on the list before, = but in short=20 a communication with words is only possible if both the speaker and the = listener =20 have experienced the reality of what is being communicated. The = classical=20 example is how to explain visual beauty to one that has been blind from = birth. Another basic lecture is about learning to "un-believe", i.e. to use = "positive doubt"=20 on every single idea and believe that comes our way. A certain mind is a = closed=20 mind, whereas a mind that denies itself of being certain of anything, = but at the=20 same time gives every theory a chance, one that never believes fully, = but at the=20 same time never condemns, is a truly open mind, and only an open mind = can=20 learn something new. One important thing I explore before going into the Meditation, which is = an=20 important part of the program: There are different "laws" governing the = "Inner=20 Reality" of ourselves than the outer space and time world. The most = important=20 factor is the UNITY OF INNER SPACE. There are no "others" inside me, so = I can't=20 use will or force to change anything there! - Yes this needs some = explaining, but=20 it's a FACT, if you look at it.=20 If I want to change something in my psyche by willing or using force, = there have=20 to be two entities, the one that wants to change, and someone or = something that=20 resists the change. This breeds inner conflict, a "psychological = personality split"=20 that perpetuates our phobias and manias, and with it all the conflicts = in the outer=20 world. The only really successful process to relieve the inner conflict = is to=20 "know thyself", a rally profound understanding or insight into what we = really=20 are. Then all inner conflicts and psychological problems will simply = automatically=20 evaporate from the Psyche. This is where meditation comes in, an = introspection=20 free of both craving and self-condemnation, and at best, free of any = movement=20 of thought altogether. This of course needs an extensive probing with a lot of reference to our = common experience, and also a lot of discussion. One thing here - there = are two=20 "types" of will, a personal will, that is "egoistic" and really only an = expression of=20 our desires, and there is an "Inner Will" that is of a totally different = nature, and=20 which will emerge naturally with the inner insight of meditation and = spiritual=20 work. This inner will is what slowly takes over all our inner processes = and=20 eventually brings total harmony in our lives. This is only a very short and incomplete description of the first part = of our Self- culture session. In the second session I go further into the "Oneness-Principle" relating = to both=20 outer and inner processes. In third and fourth session I take them = through the=20 "inner cleaning process, dealing with emotions, attitudes, believes and = opinions,=20 criticism, envy and jealousy, egoism and the tyranny of ownership, the=20 problems of codependency and incorrect relationships, on to the positive = thinking,=20 forgiving and loving, the art of giving and sharing, etc. Here I = introduce the law=20 of karma and relate it to the daily life. I also touch upon = reincarnation and the=20 path of enlightenment, but that is taken thoroughly in the last session = together=20 with other basic Theosophical theories. Session five is dedicated to health and the healing from every thinkable = aspects,=20 emphasizing that health stems from within, and the sixth session is = dedicated to=20 the introduction of traditional Yoga and spiritual practices.=20 This is only touching lightly upon the seven sessions held weekly and = lasting about 90 minutes including meditation time. Hope this isn't too longish. Love and light, Einar. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:21:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The roots of 1925 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970131052101.0072a788@mail.eden.com> At 03:46 PM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >A pity that you can't put a sound file on a mailing list. The Twilight Zone >theme would be highly appropriate. > >Or how about a joyous rendering of "The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum." > >Chuck the Heretic > Audio an video files can be attached to e-mail. You may want to check with your ISP. ..MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:53:05 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970131055305.0075c5e4@mail.eden.com> At 09:02 PM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins > >> I'm happy to hear that the LCC is developing its own identity in >> your area. My experience with the LCC is from the Los Angeles >> and Ojai areas where the TS Bishops still run the churches. I do >> remember one person about ten years ago at Far Horizons camp who >> was involved in the LCC and was trying to compile a set of >> doctrines for it (under the auspices of the proper authorities of >> course). I remember that he personally regarded CWL's writings >> as ridiculous but was rather fond of Alice Bailey's. He lives in >> your neck of the woods now, so you may know him. > >The two bishops that ran the Chicago church since 1971, one >now deceased, were obviously Theosophists and included >theosophy in their talks, but never actually mentioned any link >with TS or encouraged it. There is a new bishop, consecrated in >1993, who is closely connected with TS and aggressively proselytizes >TS to any members who have not joined TS. As I suspected, it >depends on the individual's approach. But they've been >battling about whether the LCC should be primarily Theosophical or >Christian for decades. Just out of curiosity, is the new bishop on TSA payroll? You need not mention his/her name. If he/she is on TSA payroll, may be it his/her assigned job to drum up membership to LCC. He/She who pays the piper calls the tune? If the bishop who is aggressively proselytizing were to be in India, it would be an interesting and comical scene to watch. He/she would be treated like an outcast. MKR > >I'm not aware of the person you describe, unless he's a closet >Baileyite. > >> AEB >> >I'm not sure I understand you about the one important >> >function of the LCC. To provide bishops who will then be >> >leaders of TS? Very few bishops or priests that I know have >> >much to do with the other groups - they're too busy trying to >> >make a living, keep a church running and have time for >> >their families. >> >> JHE >> I'm writing from the point of view of the inner group of the TS, >> not from the point of view of the LCC. Of course the LCC sees >> itself as a religious institution and sets its aims accordingly. >> On the other hand, for potential TS leaders to work their way up >> through the ranks of influence in the TS, they are expected to be >> involved in the LCC, Co-Masonry and the ER. > >The Emergency Room? :-) > >Well, those potential high-flyers must have working >wives support them while they pursue this course, or they manage >to function without sleep. Active holy orders would require their >Sundays, not to mention clergy and vestry meetings. Co-M is at >least several hours once a month in this area. I have >no idea when the ES meets or how often. > >They also better be well off, as the clergy robes at >the LCC have to be tailored to CWL's specs (unless you have a >wife who is handy at sewing - but there's still the material. Linen >is $10-15 a yard.) And in the Co-M, you pay more the higher >you climb through the lodges. Is there a fee for ES? > >I strongly suspect that the requirements to be a part of all >these groups were made at a time when people had more time. > >JHE >>This is why the >> current lawsuit over the Larkspur Co-Masonic split is considered >> so critical to the TS. > >I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group >trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are >you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with >TS is a potential threat? > >> Perhaps the LCC will also eventually >> split and the whole system in the TS will fall apart. > >Numerous priests and clergy have gone off to start their own >churches or join other independent ones. > >> AEB >> As for new associations, there is a rather large congregation in >> Fairfield, Iowa, near Maharishi's school that is filled with >> members who publicly espouse both Liberal Catholicism >> and Maharishi's philosophy. >> >> JHE >> Great. I've noticed that the TS doesn't seem to be threatened by >> Maharishi philosophy. I wonder what would happen if Alice Bailey >> people filled the church. > >I'm not sure they'd be interested. > >BTW, I received Candle in the Sun today. > >Thank you, >-AEB > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 05:51:52 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 3 of 3) Message-ID: <32f3877d.4809507@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> M K Ramadoss wrote: (quoting Wood's book "Is This Theosophy?") >====================Part 3============================= > Bishop Leadbeater was one of the worst politicians in this respect >especially as he grew older. He detested argument and criticism - such a >waste of time; such a dissipation of energy. I repeated this to Dora Kunz, who knew him personally, last night, and she just shook her head and said there was no truth to it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:03:15 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970131060315.0075fd50@mail.eden.com> At 09:02 PM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins > >> I'm happy to hear that the LCC is developing its own identity in >> your area. My experience with the LCC is from the Los Angeles >> and Ojai areas where the TS Bishops still run the churches. I do >> remember one person about ten years ago at Far Horizons camp who >> was involved in the LCC and was trying to compile a set of >> doctrines for it (under the auspices of the proper authorities of >> course). I remember that he personally regarded CWL's writings >> as ridiculous but was rather fond of Alice Bailey's. He lives in >> your neck of the woods now, so you may know him. > >The two bishops that ran the Chicago church since 1971, one >now deceased, were obviously Theosophists and included >theosophy in their talks, but never actually mentioned any link >with TS or encouraged it. There is a new bishop, consecrated in >1993, who is closely connected with TS and aggressively proselytizes >TS to any members who have not joined TS. As I suspected, it >depends on the individual's approach. But they've been >battling about whether the LCC should be primarily Theosophical or >Christian for decades. > >I'm not aware of the person you describe, unless he's a closet >Baileyite. > >> AEB >> >I'm not sure I understand you about the one important >> >function of the LCC. To provide bishops who will then be >> >leaders of TS? Very few bishops or priests that I know have >> >much to do with the other groups - they're too busy trying to >> >make a living, keep a church running and have time for >> >their families. >> >> JHE >> I'm writing from the point of view of the inner group of the TS, >> not from the point of view of the LCC. Of course the LCC sees >> itself as a religious institution and sets its aims accordingly. >> On the other hand, for potential TS leaders to work their way up >> through the ranks of influence in the TS, they are expected to be >> involved in the LCC, Co-Masonry and the ER. > >The Emergency Room? :-) > >Well, those potential high-flyers must have working >wives support them while they pursue this course, or they manage >to function without sleep. Active holy orders would require their >Sundays, not to mention clergy and vestry meetings. Co-M is at >least several hours once a month in this area. I have >no idea when the ES meets or how often. > >They also better be well off, as the clergy robes at >the LCC have to be tailored to CWL's specs (unless you have a >wife who is handy at sewing - but there's still the material. Linen >is $10-15 a yard.) And in the Co-M, you pay more the higher >you climb through the lodges. Is there a fee for ES? > >I strongly suspect that the requirements to be a part of all >these groups were made at a time when people had more time. > >JHE >>This is why the >> current lawsuit over the Larkspur Co-Masonic split is considered >> so critical to the TS. > >I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group >trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are >you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with >TS is a potential threat? > Co-M's HQ is in Paris. They wanted autocratic remote control from Paris. The majority of members in the US rebelled to this foreign control and decided to say bye-bye to Paris and set up its own Grand Lodge in the US owing no allegiance to any one outside the US. In the masculine masonry, every State of the US has its own Grand Lodge. So it is in line with the US tradition. The Paris followers in the US sued the US (co)masonry to take control of the assets. The litigation is going on in Denver Federal District Court. It would be interesting to see how the litigation turns out to be. However it turns out to be, the bottom line is large sums of money donated for charitable purposes is being spent on lawyers who are happy to litigate. Couple of years ago, TSA put the Co-Masonic (Paris) faction program in the official agenda of the annual convention. I took objection to it because it is an overt attempt to get TSA mixed up with Co-Masonic Organization. I wrote to TSA and Adyar about this issue at that time. MKR >> Perhaps the LCC will also eventually >> split and the whole system in the TS will fall apart. > >Numerous priests and clergy have gone off to start their own >churches or join other independent ones. > >> AEB >> As for new associations, there is a rather large congregation in >> Fairfield, Iowa, near Maharishi's school that is filled with >> members who publicly espouse both Liberal Catholicism >> and Maharishi's philosophy. >> >> JHE >> Great. I've noticed that the TS doesn't seem to be threatened by >> Maharishi philosophy. I wonder what would happen if Alice Bailey >> people filled the church. > >I'm not sure they'd be interested. > >BTW, I received Candle in the Sun today. > >Thank you, >-AEB > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:08:53 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The condition of TS in 1925 (Part 3 of 3) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970131060853.00769e34@mail.eden.com> At 12:55 AM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: > >(quoting Wood's book "Is This Theosophy?") > >>====================Part 3============================= > >> Bishop Leadbeater was one of the worst politicians in this respect >>especially as he grew older. He detested argument and criticism - such a >>waste of time; such a dissipation of energy. > >I repeated this to Dora Kunz, who knew him personally, last night, and >she just shook her head and said there was no truth to it. > Let me add some facts. Ernest Wood worked several decades as his private secretary of CWL so has a long first hand knowledge of CWL. Wood also lived in Adyar for several decades and saw everything that went on there on a day- to-day basis. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 06:19:13 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: James Morgan Pryse's Experience Message-ID: <32f48e22.6511303@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> M K Ramadoss wrote: >Couple of years ago, one of the frequent attendees of our lodge mentioned to >me about Pryse's experience with HPB. Since I have never seen it, she >graceously provided me with a copy. BTW, she was not a member of TS nor did >she joined it. My grateful thanks go to her. Here is the account. > >================================= > >MEMORABILIA OF H. P. BLAVATSKY > >By James Morgan Pryse >In years past I made hundreds of mesmeric experiments, with different >subjects, sometimes using my prana as a healing force. As H.P.B. was >dying for lack of this vital force, while I, a young man had plenty of it, I >determined to transfer, by a mesmeric process, half my prana to H.P.B. It is >analogous psychically to the transfusion of blood physically. As I began >concentrating to make the transfer H.P.B. called to me, physically but >audibly. "Don't do it; it's black magic." Undeterred, I cabled back to her >"Very well, Old Lady, black magic or not, I'm going to do it anyway" and I >did. I don't understand this. What makes one act white magic and another black, if not the motive? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:02:54 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <970131012735_304100828@emout14.mail.aol.com> The LCC offers a set of teachings which are mystical. By its own definition, it's a gnostic church. Hence, it can't divorce itself from the Ageless Wisdom (theos-sophia). From the TS, yes, but not from esoteric Christianity. It was never meant to be a mainstream Church, either Protestant or Roman Catholic. What purpose would it serve if it were mainstream since there are so many of them as it is? The LCC is basically a wedding between Catholic sacramentalism and gnostic teachings. That is the essence of its uniqueness. If it abandoned its metaphysical teachings, it would lose its raison d'etre. I belong to the TS, ULT and TS (Pasadena). I'm an associate member in a rosicrucian group (not AMORC), a Sai Baba devotee and have (gasp!) all the collected works of Alice A. Bailey in my library of some 3,500 volumes on metaphysics and esotericism. I'm also in the LCC clergy. I haven't been excommunicated yet nor do I expect to be! I've read some of the A.A.B books and but others of hers I'll probably never read. Just like I've read some of HPB but read more of those who followed in her wake in the TS (and as well as those were outside the TS like Steiner, Heindel, Clymer, Manly P. Hall, Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Mouni Sadhu, Yogananda, etc., etc., the list goes on) And, huh, oh yes, even Jerry too (Enochian Physics, ISBN 0-87542-712-X)! I have a tendency to gravitate more toward the models presented by CWL, Hodson and Taimni but that's just my predilection. Different styles, different emphasis. The point is I have the freedom to explore, like anyone else. There are clergy and laity who are martinists, rosicrucians, kabalists, theosophists, astrologers, TM-ers, and even alchemists besides those who are CoM-ers, ES-ers and all the rest of it. And there are some who are just clergy or laity who are not affiliated with anything other than the Church. No problema. LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 01:06:00 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: James Morgan Pryse's Experience Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970131070600.00705b64@mail.eden.com> At 01:23 AM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >M K Ramadoss wrote: > >>Couple of years ago, one of the frequent attendees of our lodge mentioned to >>me about Pryse's experience with HPB. Since I have never seen it, she >>graceously provided me with a copy. BTW, she was not a member of TS nor did >>she joined it. My grateful thanks go to her. Here is the account. >> >>================================= >> >>MEMORABILIA OF H. P. BLAVATSKY >> >>By James Morgan Pryse > >>In years past I made hundreds of mesmeric experiments, with different >subjects, sometimes using my prana as a healing force. As H.P.B. was >dying for lack of this vital force, while I, a young man had plenty of it, I >determined to transfer, by a mesmeric process, half my prana to H.P.B. It is >analogous psychically to the transfusion of blood physically. As I began >concentrating to make the transfer H.P.B. called to me, physically but >audibly. "Don't do it; it's black magic." Undeterred, I cabled back to her >"Very well, Old Lady, black magic or not, I'm going to do it anyway" and I >did. > >I don't understand this. What makes one act white magic and another >black, if not the motive? > I believe that when some occult power is used for selfish purposes it may be called black magic. In this case HPB may have initially resisted Pryse using his power. But it seems ultimately it succeeded. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 03:59:55 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: Subjectivity/Objectivity Message-ID: <970130233345_-2045484873@emout16.mail.aol.com> If moral standards are merely subjective, like tastes, then there would be no way of settling disputes about whether the behaviour is immoral or not. I can support an activity like stealing by merely asserting that I am creating my own reality or that I'm expressing "my good" within that reality even though your concept of what may be good might be different from mine, (particularly if you're on the receiving end of the stealing). An S & L swindle may be "good" for the swindler but not so great for the older folks whose life savings are wiped out. An objectivist would contend, and rightly so, that there is no essential difference between a dispute about moral matters and a dispute about factual ones. Stealing is wrong and if you deny this, then one of us is right and one is wrong. Our statement that stealing is wrong has an objective reference to the fact that something was taken that didn't belong to that person, i.e., the thief. . Here we can see how subjectivism creates moral chaos. Morality becomes arbitrary, merely a matter of caprice and whim. If we like murder, then it is our "good"; if we dislike it, it is "evil"; but we might like it one day, and dislike it another according to our "reality"- does this mean that murder is sometimes right, sometimes wrong? According to the theory of moral situationism, there is no objectivity in morals. Morality is determined by whatever the situation calls for at the moment. Lying, stealing and adultery becomes right under certain conditions. Even murder. Just ask some of our current politicans (in either party). Adopting such a position obviously reduces moral life to haphazard confusion and anarchy. If this subjectivist view prevailed, moral life as we know it would become impossible - for example, how could we punish anyone for a crime he or she committed? We already see "moral relativism" or "situation ethics" coming into play all too frequently in our society today... another unfortunate legacy from the Sixties. It is used to justify just about anything these days, including sleeping with thy neighbor's wife (like Krishnamurti). Recommended reading: Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior by E. Michael Jones, Ignatius Press, San Francisco - ISBN 0-89870-447-2 LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 09:52:38 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: The First Object of TS Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970131155238.0068ac6c@mail.eden.com> Last night when I was at the lodge library, I happened to pick up a book and when I opened it, I saw this very interesting letter from Master K.H. He has very simply and clearly stated what the first object of the society is. It is philanthropy. Read for yourself, the following letter. =========== LETTER 68 FOR DR. Hubbe Schleiden VIA H. S. O. To be accepted as a chela on probation - is an easy thing. To become an accepted chela - is to court the miseries of "probation." Life in the ordinary run is not entirely made up of heavy trials and mental misery; the life of a chela who offers himself voluntarily is one long sacrifice. He, who would control hereafter the events of his life here and beyond, has first of all to submit himself to be controlled, yet triumph over every temptation, every woe of flesh and mind. The Chela "on probation" is like the wayfarer in the old fable of the-sphinx; only the one question becomes a long series of every day riddles propounded by the Sphinx of Life, who sits by the wayside, and who, unless her ever changing and perplexing puzzles are successfully answered one after the other, impedes the progress of the traveller and finally destroys him. Let H. S. O. explain what he knows of chelaship. We refuse no one. "Spheres of usefulness" can be found everywhere. The first object of the Society is philanthropy. The true Theosophist is the Philanthropist who- "not for himself, but for the world he lives." In this direction much is already achieved by Dr. Hubbe Schleiden. This, and philosophy the right comprehension of life and its mysteries - will give "the necessary basis" and show the right pathway to pursue. Yet the best sphere of usefulness for the applicant is now in Germany. When complications arise and there comes a new development, he will be advised. His health will be looked after: for the present as little writing as possible. "Der Vater M . .'' is in no mood of answering. I do so for him. K. H. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 10:00:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970131160001.0071215c@mail.eden.com> At 02:06 AM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >The LCC offers a set of teachings which are mystical. By its own definition, >it's a gnostic church. Hence, it can't divorce itself from the Ageless Wisdom >(theos-sophia). From the TS, yes, but not from esoteric Christianity. It was >never meant to be a mainstream Church, either Protestant or Roman Catholic. >What purpose would it serve if it were mainstream since there are so many of >them as it is? The LCC is basically a wedding between Catholic sacramentalism >and gnostic teachings. That is the essence of its uniqueness. If it abandoned >its metaphysical teachings, it would lose its raison d'etre. > >I belong to the TS, ULT and TS (Pasadena). I'm an associate member in a >rosicrucian group (not AMORC), a Sai Baba devotee and have (gasp!) all the >collected works of Alice A. Bailey in my library of some 3,500 volumes on >metaphysics and esotericism. I'm also in the LCC clergy. I haven't been >excommunicated yet nor do I expect to be! I've read some of the A.A.B books >and but others of hers I'll probably never read. Just like I've read some of >HPB but read more of those who followed in her wake in the TS (and as well as >those were outside the TS like Steiner, Heindel, Clymer, Manly P. Hall, >Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Mouni Sadhu, Yogananda, etc., etc., the list goes on) >And, huh, oh yes, even Jerry too (Enochian Physics, ISBN 0-87542-712-X)! I >have a tendency to gravitate more toward the models presented by CWL, Hodson >and Taimni but that's just my predilection. Different styles, different >emphasis. The point is I have the freedom to explore, like anyone else. There >are clergy and laity who are martinists, rosicrucians, kabalists, >theosophists, astrologers, TM-ers, and even alchemists besides those who are >CoM-ers, ES-ers and all the rest of it. And there are some who are just >clergy or laity who are not affiliated with anything other than the Church. >No problema. > > >LunarPitri > > Are there any women priests and bishops in LCC? MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:37:32 -0500 (EST) From: Lmhem111@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 871 Message-ID: <970131113019_-1944776501@emout13.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-31 10:59:17 EST, you write: << I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group >trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are >you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with >TS is a potential threat? >> I heard that the election debacle involving Bing Escudero versus the powers-that-be spilled over into the Co-Masonic Order and that the Bing faction "took over" Larkspur. There was also an alignment of Bing's group with the LCC-Oklahoma Synod, a small schismatic splinter church (Bishop Johnny Schwartz) which broke away from The LCC about 15 years ago. This despite the fact that Bing is still a member of the TSA and for a while was on the Board of Directors. LunarPitri From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:20:16 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Respect for HPB Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970131172016.006ac8b0@xs4all.nl> Dear Paul, I agree entirely with what you have written about HPB. Although I may have created a different impression I highly respect HPB and consider her a genius and courageous woman! Michael Rogge Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:29:15 +0100 From: Michael Subject: Debunking Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970131172915.006bccf4@xs4all.nl> Ann wrote: >What is your purpose and personal satisfaction in "debunking" the >the Masters? > The purpose is to discover the truth, as I surmised all of us were. I should have preferred that truth to be that there were indeed Masters guiding the course of mankind. Unfortunately history gives us no evidence thereof. I sincerely apologize if I have offended your feelings. Michael Amsterdam, Netherlands http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/index.html From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:37:29 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Home base Message-ID: <199701311937.LAA19070@palrel1.hp.com> Lmhem111@aol.com (LunarPitri) wrote: > I belong to the TS, ULT and TS (Pasadena). I'm an associate member in a > rosicrucian group (not AMORC), a Sai Baba devotee and have (gasp!) all the > collected works of Alice A. Bailey in my library of some 3,500 volumes on > metaphysics and esotericism. I'm also in the LCC clergy. I haven't been > excommunicated yet nor do I expect to be! I've read some of the A.A.B books > and but others of hers I'll probably never read. Just like I've read some of > HPB but read more of those who followed in her wake in the TS (and as well > as those were outside the TS like Steiner, Heindel, Clymer, Manly P. Hall, > Aurobindo, Ramakrishna, Mouni Sadhu, Yogananda, etc., etc., the list goes > on) And, huh, oh yes, even Jerry too (Enochian Physics, ISBN 0-87542-712-X)! > I have a tendency to gravitate more toward the models presented by CWL, > Hodson and Taimni but that's just my predilection. Different styles, > different emphasis. The point is I have the freedom to explore, like anyone > else. There are clergy and laity who are martinists, rosicrucians, > kabalists, theosophists, astrologers, TM-ers, and even alchemists besides > those who are CoM-ers, ES-ers and all the rest of it. And there are some who > are just clergy or laity who are not affiliated with anything other than the > Church. No problema. Quite an assortment there. I like to read of different luminaries "in action" myself. But I personally like a focus, a home base for lack of a better word, to help in the actual application of a spiritual praxis. As Yogananda said, very approximately, ~"Many students under the guise of broad-mindedness move from teaching to teaching and never settle down to practice instruction."~ [Note: as much as I admire Yogananda, I don't really want to affiliate myself with SRF - even though they have many good qualities.] You may find the idea of a home base too restricting. I'm guessing if you do have one, it's Theosopy. If so does Theosophy serve well for this purpose? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:24:37 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The roots of 1925 Message-ID: <970131152435_136390887@emout20.mail.aol.com> Doss, It wouldn't matter, my ancient system wouldn't be able to play them anyway. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:26:58 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <970131152654_1893967980@emout18.mail.aol.com> Doss, I'm not in the LCC, but I was there when the new bishop was bishoped and yes, he's on the payroll and probably under strict orders from you know who to drum up the TS whenever possible. He is also a firm believer in Theosophy and probably feels a very strong connection between the two systems so it may just be a natural thing on his part to do so. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:29:32 -0500 (EST) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <970131152930_1446947183@emout12.mail.aol.com> Doss, There were a lot of us not in Co-Masonry (it is a great abomination to wear white in a ritual) who were equally upset about that ceremony being on the summer school program. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:30:19 -0600 (CST) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 871 Message-ID: On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 Lmhem111@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 97-01-31 10:59:17 EST, you write: > > << I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group > >trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are > >you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with > >TS is a potential threat? >> > > I heard that the election debacle involving Bing Escudero versus the > powers-that-be spilled over into the Co-Masonic Order and that the Bing > faction "took over" Larkspur. There was also an alignment of Bing's group > with the LCC-Oklahoma Synod, a small schismatic splinter church (Bishop > Johnny Schwartz) which broke away from The LCC about 15 years ago. This > despite the fact that Bing is still a member of the TSA and for a while was > on the Board of Directors. > > LunarPitri > Over a year ago, I posted a msg on the co-m law suit. When I find the msg, I will repost soon. MKR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:45:42 -0800 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: James Morgan Pryse's Experience Message-ID: <199701312145.NAA16187@palrel3.hp.com> mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) wrote: > M K Ramadoss wrote: >> Couple of years ago, one of the frequent attendees of our lodge mentioned to >> me about Pryse's experience with HPB. Since I have never seen it, she >> graceously provided me with a copy. BTW, she was not a member of TS nor did >> she joined it. My grateful thanks go to her. Here is the account. >> ================================= >> MEMORABILIA OF H. P. BLAVATSKY >> By James Morgan Pryse >> In years past I made hundreds of mesmeric experiments, with different >> subjects, sometimes using my prana as a healing force. As H.P.B. was dying >> for lack of this vital force, while I, a young man had plenty of it, I >> determined to transfer, by a mesmeric process, half my prana to H.P.B. It >> is analogous psychically to the transfusion of blood physically. As I began >> concentrating to make the transfer H.P.B. called to me, physically but >> audibly. "Don't do it; it's black magic." Undeterred, I cabled back to her >> "Very well, Old Lady, black magic or not, I'm going to do it anyway" and I >> did. > I don't understand this. What makes one act white magic and another black, > if not the motive? In this case, probably tampering with a person's true time to go. I'd be tempted to call the code-blue procedure a modern form of black magic. I wonder about Pryse's interpretation of his vision of HPB's incarnating into the grown body of a young man. This also seems like tampering with the necessary stages of life. We are born as babes for a reason. Toddlerhood and childhood enable us to renew and recover wonder and imagination. It must also be a kind of buffered transition into this world. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:04:03 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Reality (To Tom) Message-ID: <32ff3cb6.17278086@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jerry S. wrote: >Tom: >>I am not aware of a reason to believe that. The idea that these laws >>are fixed, universal, and eternal makes the most sense to me, with the >>possibility of a higher being deciding them for us being the second >>most likely. > The "law of gravity" is not a law at all. Einstein demonstrated >that gravity is a characteristic of matter in space, not a thing-in-itself. It is a law of how matter relates to other matter. >There is no gravity where there is no matter. In the sense that there would be nothing to which the law applied to, yes. But in the sense that if there was matter, it would relate to itself in a certain way, the law would exist even if there was no matter. >Thus gravity changes as matter changes. Unique forms of matter relate to each other uniquely only due to their uniqueness, but the law is the same. >It can't be "universal" or "eternal" because matter isn't. I infer that you disagree with HPB's idea, as expressed in "The Secret Doctrine," that homogeneous spirit and matter are eternal. I see no reason not to believe it. >If you like the idea of God making it all up, then go for >it. Thats not much different than the notion that Manus or Cosmocrators >did it all. I prefer to think that our spiritual Selves brought it all >together, or at least had a say in it. You seem to be saying that if anything exists, someone had to create it. Who created homogeneous spirit and matter? >>What would the word "imaginary" mean, if there is no such thing as a >>perception that is not identical to reality? > Imaginary means somethine that we perceive, that is not >shared by the perception of others. Its part of our personal reality. >Reality, like karma and the unconscious, is both personal and >collective. What would the words "error" and "accurate" mean? The end result of what you seem to be saying that there are no differences in value between perceptions. They are all equal. If I perceive that George Washington is still President of the United States, that is no better and no worse than if I had perceived that Bill Clinton is President. The word "education" would be meaningless, if this is true. >>If I perceived a bridge across the Grand Canyon and tried to walk on >>it, and instead fell in, in what sense would the bridge have been >>"real" and why would it be wrong to refer to that perception of the >>bridge as mistaken? > This is a mistake known in the occult world as >confounding the planes. The bridge that you see, and others don't >see, is astral rather than physical--a physical bridge would be a >shared perception. We get into all kinds of trouble when we >perceive inner (astral) reality and mistake it for outer (physical) >reality. Does this mean that you would define the word "error" as "confounding the planes, or is that only one type of error?" >I have the right to decide what >I consider to be truth or false. You do too. Sometimes your truth >and my truth may agree. Sometimes not. Sometimes what one believes to be true is false, and vice versa. >>That perception of truth changes does not mean that truth changes with >>it. You are defining away the possibility of error. > Depends on how you define error. I define it as anything >that is replaced with something new. As our sense of reality changes, >we get a new sense of reality, the old being labeled as an error. Your >reality may be my error, or vice versa. When I am dreaming, the dream >seems very real to me. After I wake, I can label it error. This is >pretty much what we all do. This is what I meant by pure subjectivism. It says that there is no reality besides perception. I would not label a dream "error," since the dreamer probably never believes that the images are objectively real. But believing that the earth was flat did not become error when the spherical shape of the earth was discovered. As long as the earth was shaped spherically, it was always error. >>If I perceive a unicorn, the components of that perception must have >>some reality. I know what a horn is. I know what a horse is. By >>putting together components of what I know, my perception of a unicorn >>is possible. But that doesn't make it accurate. > It will not be accurate in the sense that such a being does >not exist on the physical plane. But it would be accurate in the >sense that such a being exists on the mental plane, else you would >not have been able to invision it. I have always thought of imagination as active and creative. You seem to be saying that it is passive, more along the lines of physical observations. Or would you say that, just as physical forms can be created by rearranging physical matter, mental forms can be created by rearranging mental matter? >You seem to keep wanting to limit reality to the physical plane. Not at all. That Bill Clinton is President of the United States is not a physical reality. >The physical plane is only the tip of a large iceberg, so to speak. I agree completely. I have used this very phrase many times to refer to physical reality. >>All perceptions are objectively real. But not only are they >>not all accurate, I would go so far as to say that none of them are >>perfectly and completely accurate, but are all partially so, to unique >>degrees. > What do you mean by "accurate?" A perception is accurate if it is identical to reality. To one who believes there is no reality besides perception, the term would be meaningless. Although I find your theory about the agreements that people have about what they consider to be "reality" being explainable in terms of overlapping of perception to be conceivable, I find it far more plausible to believe that this agreement can be accounted for by postulating a reality that exists independently of perception. An endless supply of examples of how one individual sees that another is inaccurate in his or her perception could be given as evidence that objective inaccuracy is possible. Not without some arrogance, however. I actually argue the possibility of the other side with Objectivists, whose philosophy is based on the premise of an independently existing reality, since I at least see that whether or not there is a reality that exists independently of perception can only be a matter of faith, at least to some extent, either way. The dangers of both Objectivism and subjectivism are similar, in that they are both prone to equate reality with perception if they go to an extreme. For Objectivists, who believe there is an independent reality, that would result in arrogance, and for subjectivists, who don't, that would result in having no reason to be careful. >Do you mean that others have to agree to it? Reality is the standard, not consensus. >You seem to be saying that our >overlapping areas, our collective reality, is real but our personal >reality is unreal. Do you think that your dreams are unreal too? All perception is real. >>The law of karma is objective, as is everything else, in that errors >>in perceiving it accurately are possible. > Again, I don't know what you mean by accurately. As >our perception changes, we label what was true as false, and >assume the new stuff is "accurate." But this only lasts until >the next change. There is no objective accuracy anywhere. There is no objective inaccuracy in our own perceptions, of which we are aware. But only if there is no reality independent of our perception is there not objective inaccuracy. >There is no subjective accuracy anywhere either, because our >sense of identity changes along with our sense of reality. >We each have a sense of reality, a sense of identity, and sense >of time, and so on. But all of these things change. I agree. Perception of reality changes. >>I infer that you mean that the law of karma is unique to each >>planetary chain. How might it differ in other planetary chains from >>ours? > Depends on how we want to define the law of karma. If >we define it as causality, then it may not change much. If we >define it as some kind of divine justice, then it will change a great >deal. In other planetary chains, then, perhaps murder is rewarded with social approval? I suggest that if this type of difference is impossible, the law of karma is objective and universal. >When defined as Order, karma >is deterministic and logical. Chaos is undeterministic and illogical. >Karma always exists with Chaos, just like subjective always >exists with objective. This seems to be similar, if not identical, to my belief that randomness and determinism always co-exist, just as spirit and matter do. But I would not call randomness "illogical." It is also subject to law. >For us, the reality of such beings are separate >and external, while for the world's mystics, they are not separate >at all. Whose reality is correct? I think they both are. I don't see how they could both be true. Why would the mystic go to the trouble of discovering that his spiritual Self is not separate from the self of which most people are ordinarily conscious if it is not an improvement? >>I have no awareness of this monad which is distinct from >>the individual of whom I am aware. > For this I am sorry. Some day, perhaps. Until >you become aware of it, I doubt that you will accept much >of what I am saying. You're being sorry implies that it would be an improvement for me to be aware of it, yet you are also saying that there never can be any improvement in one's perception, since you define perception as reality. I don't see how those two contentions can be reconciled. Why seek truth if I already have it in whatever I perceive? >>How could one who is not aware of one's monad become >>aware of it without trusting someone else as an >>authority? No effort to try to be aware of it would or even could be >>made without faith in others who say it exists. > I agree that we have to begin with faith. At some point, >though, faith has to give way to experience. Actually, effort is >not always necessary. Some people get this automatically, >without effort. Presumably they developed the ability in a past >life. I agree completely. No other explanation of individuals developing certain abilities easier than others do makes as much sense to me. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 02:04:10 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: To Doss Message-ID: <33005088.22352003@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> doss wrote: >Have you seen any of K's video tapes? I have found them very interesting. I have seen several of the tapes of his talks with David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and John Hidley. K. certainly lives up to his admonition to be open-minded. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:25:31 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Our Human Life-Wave Message-ID: <19970131172833.AAA27117@JerrySchueler> Tom: >Were these agreements unanimous? If not, was the minority which >disagreed forced to come along, anyway? Interesting question. To some extent, they were all unanimous. Those who agreed began incarnations in our human life-wave at the beginning of Round 1. Those who refused went elsewhere. There were, doubtless, a few who came reluctantly out of karmic obligation or personal reasons. These are the folks who are not wholely happy being human. These "agreements" are still going on, and rules can change, because we are all in telepathic communication at all times. If you listen real hard... Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 13:07:43 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Morals Message-ID: <19970131180759.AAA14195@JerrySchueler> LunarPitri: >If moral standards are merely subjective, like tastes, then there would be no >way of settling disputes about whether the behaviour is immoral or not. But moral standards are indeed subjective, and differ with different cultures. The way they are settled also varies with culture. In our society, they are settled in courts of law. If a law is broken, one is punished. If not, then one goes free. In our society, the Chrisitan church is generally acknowledged as being the guide to what is morally right and wrong. >I can >support an activity like stealing by merely asserting that I am creating my >own reality or that I'm expressing "my good" within that reality even though >your concept of what may be good might be different from mine, (particularly >if you're on the receiving end of the stealing). Indeed, there are times when stealing is morally justified (stealing bread for one's hungry children, for example, if that is the only way to keep them alive). We must each create our own moral sense of what is right and wrong, and live it--but we should not force nor expect others to live within our own moral code. >An S & L swindle may be >"good" for the swindler but not so great for the older folks whose life >savings are wiped out. This is exactly what laws and courts are for. >An objectivist would contend, and rightly so, that >there is no essential difference between a dispute about moral matters and a >dispute about factual ones. Then the objectivist is plain wrong. This is the problem that we had in early America during the pilgrim era, which lead to witch hunts and other social evils. Its exactly the rationale that Hitler used to eradicate the Jews. >Stealing is wrong and if you deny this, then one >of us is right and one is wrong. This is exactly the general thinking during 18th century Britian, where people were condemned for stealing bread for their starving children. Moral people often tend to put on blinders. This makes them do things that are as immoral as the one's they accuse. >Our statement that stealing is wrong has an >objective reference to the fact that something was taken that didn't belong >to that person, i.e., the thief. In the American Indian culture, as well as others, there was almost no such thing as personal property. They laughed at the White Man's idea of owning land, for example, as if the Earth could be owned by a human being. The White Man has always had this strong sense of ownership and propery--it allows for elitism, the rich to get richer, and the poor to stay in their proper place. The idea of personal property is championed primary by lawyers. >Here we can see how subjectivism creates moral chaos. As I have tried to say many times, you can't have subjectivity without objectivity. The attempt to do so is ludicrous, and plain silly. My sense of morals may be your moral chaos, and vice versa. I have said for a long time, and still maintain, that if you develop a sincere compassion for others, your moral behavior will take care of itself. >Morality becomes >arbitrary, merely a matter of caprice and whim. My dear sir, morality is already arbitrary. Just look at the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, at the Arabs and Jews in the Mid East, and so on. >If we like murder, then it is >our "good"; if we dislike it, it is "evil"; but we might like it one day, and >dislike it another according to our "reality"- does this mean that murder is >sometimes right, sometimes wrong? Murder, IMO, is never "right," but it can sometimes be morally justified, as in the case of abortion, or in war, or in self-defense. >According to the theory of moral >situationism, there is no objectivity in morals. You wrong here. The objectivity simply depends on the circumstances. >Morality is determined by >whatever the situation calls for at the moment. Lying, stealing and adultery >becomes right under certain conditions. Even murder. Yes, as I have already tried to indicate. Anyone who thinks that some behavior is always wrong or always right is a simplistic fundamentalist who must come to terms with his own moral sense some day (not you, of course). >Adopting such a position obviously reduces moral life to haphazard confusion >and anarchy. Quite the opposite. It makes it sensible and meaningful. >If this subjectivist view prevailed, moral life as we know it >would become impossible - for example, how could we punish anyone for a crime >he or she committed? Now you are confusing morals with legalities. There is a big difference. I am a strong believer that society needs laws. Moral codes are something else again. >We already see "moral relativism" or "situation ethics" >coming into play all too frequently in our society today... another >unfortunate legacy from the Sixties. I see it as a maturing of society. >It is used to justify just about >anything these days, including sleeping with thy neighbor's wife (like >Krishnamurti). A time-honored tradition found throughout the world in every age and needing no justification at all. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 18:32:56 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: Debunking Message-ID: <199702010209.VAA20718@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Michael > > Ann wrote: > >What is your purpose and personal satisfaction in "debunking" the > >the Masters? > > > The purpose is to discover the truth, as I surmised all of us were. > I should have preferred that truth to be that there were indeed Masters > guiding the course of mankind. Unfortunately history gives us no evidence > thereof. > I sincerely apologize if I have offended your feelings. No, my feelings weren't offended. I have my own opinions about the Masters, based on highly personal and unreliable sources. I was just curious. Since history give no evidence, I wonder if your own personal meeting with a Master would change your viewpoint? -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:23:53 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: The LCC Message-ID: <199702010209.VAA20734@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > Doss, > I'm not in the LCC, but I was there when the new bishop was bishoped and yes, > he's on the payroll and probably under strict orders from you know who to > drum up the TS whenever possible. > YOU WERE THERE?! Did you make any anti-evil signs during the service? I was there also, taking pictures, but in those days, I had no idea the babe existed. As for the drumming up, I always felt it was just a personality thing myself. Of course, maybe Dr. Psionic is privy to info that I am not. > He is also a firm believer in Theosophy and probably feels a very strong > connection between the two systems so it may just be a natural thing on his > part to do so. > Indeed. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:33:35 -0600 From: "Ann E. Bermingham" Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 871 Message-ID: <199702010209.VAA20754@cliff.cris.com> ---------- > From: Lmhem111@aol.com > > In a message dated 97-01-31 10:59:17 EST, you write: > > << I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group > >trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are > >you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with > >TS is a potential threat? >> > > I heard that the election debacle involving Bing Escudero versus the > powers-that-be spilled over into the Co-Masonic Order and that the Bing > faction "took over" Larkspur. There was also an alignment of Bing's group > with the LCC-Oklahoma Synod, a small schismatic splinter church (Bishop > Johnny Schwartz) which broke away from The LCC about 15 years ago. This > despite the fact that Bing is still a member of the TSA and for a while was > on the Board of Directors. > > LunarPitri (Ann's head falls her desk) I vividly remember being at a clergy meeting way back around 1980-81 when J. Schwartz broke off from the church. The clergy were so upset they didn't talk about anything else for the rest of the meeting. This is truly high soap opera in a three ring circus. -AEB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:36:00 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 871 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970201023600.007282f0@mail.eden.com> At 11:46 AM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-01-31 10:59:17 EST, you write: > ><< I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group > >trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are > >you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with > >TS is a potential threat? >> > >I heard that the election debacle involving Bing Escudero versus the >powers-that-be spilled over into the Co-Masonic Order and that the Bing >faction "took over" Larkspur. There was also an alignment of Bing's group >with the LCC-Oklahoma Synod, a small schismatic splinter church (Bishop >Johnny Schwartz) which broke away from The LCC about 15 years ago. This >despite the fact that Bing is still a member of the TSA and for a while was >on the Board of Directors. > >LunarPitri >From what I know, the only thing common between Bing and some of the Elected Leaders of Co-Masonic Order is that their skin is *not* white. There is no Bing's group. It is my impression that he was not even a member of Co-M. Several years ago, when Bing and his wife thrown out on the street overnight by TSA powers, it was Johnny Schwartz who provided them shelter in Tulsa which prevented them from ending up in Salvation Army Homeless Shelter. It was a great act of practical compassion and demonstration of Brotherhood on the part of Johnny Schwartz (for which he should be congratulated.) Again there is no Bing's group in the LCC-OK Synod. A group may be there in LCC-OK but it is not Bing's group. It appears that any attempt to tie some of the problems to the so called Bing's group is an attempt to smear Bing by TS Politicians. Bing is still very popular among the TSA membership and most have not forgotten what all TSA did to him. Many are still angry. Bing is a member of TS and has travelled around the country and lectured at many TSA TS Lodges without the status of an *approved* TSA lecturer and without any of the TSA funding. In the last election, he ran for the election and lost. I would like to hear any facts that may contradict the above. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:39:18 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 871 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970201023918.00698e88@mail.eden.com> At 09:20 PM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >> From: Lmhem111@aol.com >> >> In a message dated 97-01-31 10:59:17 EST, you write: >> >> << I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group >> >trying to take all the resources and form another group. Are >> >you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with >> >TS is a potential threat? >> >> >> I heard that the election debacle involving Bing Escudero versus the >> powers-that-be spilled over into the Co-Masonic Order and that the Bing >> faction "took over" Larkspur. There was also an alignment of Bing's group >> with the LCC-Oklahoma Synod, a small schismatic splinter church (Bishop >> Johnny Schwartz) which broke away from The LCC about 15 years ago. This >> despite the fact that Bing is still a member of the TSA and for a while was >> on the Board of Directors. >> >> LunarPitri > >(Ann's head falls her desk) I vividly remember being at a clergy meeting >way back around 1980-81 when J. Schwartz broke off from the church. The >clergy were so upset they didn't talk about anything else for the rest of the >meeting. > >This is truly high soap opera in a three ring circus. > >-AEB > Ann: Since I have not kept up with LCC, what was it that broke the camel's back? ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:41:21 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 871 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970201024121.0071a3b8@mail.eden.com> At 09:20 PM 1/31/97 -0500, you wrote: >---------- >(Ann's head falls her desk) I vividly remember being at a clergy meeting >way back around 1980-81 when J. Schwartz broke off from the church. The >clergy were so upset they didn't talk about anything else for the rest of the >meeting. > >This is truly high soap opera in a three ring circus. > >-AEB Ann: Do you know if LCC allows women to hold the offices all the way up to the *Pope*? Also see my post about attempt to Bing to tie to some of the problems of Co-M and LCC. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 21:45:09 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Shankaracharya Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970201034509.0070ce94@mail.eden.com> I had mentioned about Shankaracharya -- one of the most reknowned religious leaders who reformed Hinduism. I had an inquiry about him. Hence I am posting the following: ======================= SHRI SHANKARACHARYA BY H. V. This Great Restorer of the Hindu religion and Founder of its noblest philosophical school, took birth among men soon after the passing away of the Lord Gautama Buddha, though a much later date is usually assigned to Him. In the East, the immortality of a Great Teacher is more profoundly realised than in the West, and so those who are His spiritual sons, bearing the unmistakable impress of His personal influence and continuing His work, are intuitively recognised as one with Himself, their Gurudeva, however many centuries may stretch between them and the true manifestation. Learned historians may chafe, groping in the dust, to find reliable evidence of a Zarathushtra and others; but so it must tee, for these things are truly not of time but of eternity. In this connection, we may well ponder over the words of the Christ when someone found fault with His chronology: '' Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." It seems that, in that wonderful fifth century B.C., when Great Messengers were incarnating in different lands, to suit old truths to new times, as Pythagoras in Greece and Lao-Tze in China, the Supreme Teacher Himself trod the "soil of India, the Holy Land of old, as Gautama the Buddha. But His message was not meant primarily for Hindus, though deeply influencing Hinduism, just as Christianity was not meant primarily for the Jews; and there was some danger lest the beauty of His life of service and noble ethical teachings might lead to the disparagement, and ultimate loss, of those superb philosophical truths which Hinduism held in trust for the world. So it was deemed necessary that another Great One should come to illuminate and restore, supplementing the work of His great Brother, but in no way opposing it, though the followers of both were later to come into conflict, as foolish followers will! Shri Shankaracharya was born, it is said, in Kerala, to an elderly Brahmana couple, who were devotees of Mahadeva. Some accounts claim a miraculous birth for Him, of the God Shiva, and, as in the case of the Lord Jesus, doubts were later cast on His legitimacy. In a dream, Mahadeva offered His parents the choice, either of one son, of surpassing wisdom and merit but of short life, or of many sons of more ordinary character and length of days. The parents made the better choice, though afterwards the mother would seek to wean her son from His path of renunciation, and would have to be reminded by the Rishi Agastya of her earlier decision. Indeed, she was highly honored, for He who had come to her for motherly care was none other than a Son of the Fire, sent forth from the very throne of Him to Whom the whole world bows in reverence, the Spiritual King of the Earth. This wonderful Child soon set about "His Father's business," mastering many of the Shastras before He was eight, and finishing His education at sixteen. Then, resisting His mother's wish for His marriage, He won her reluctant consent to His becoming a Sannyasi. Thenceforth He journeyed tirelessly over the vast plains of India, from the Himalayas and Kashmir to Cape Comorin, from Puri in the East to Dwarka in the West, establishing Muths, disputing with and enlightening the learned, sternly denouncing ill practices, and winning, by His sweet reasonableness, the most perversely orthodox. His was a mighty work of organising and purifying, while at the same time He lit a flame of devotion in men's hearts, strong enough to revitalise the whole of Hinduism, giving it a philosophy unapproachable in its loftiness by any other religion in the world. A beautiful story is told of Him, when He went to Kashi (or Benares), early in life. On his way to a bath in the holy river Ganga, His way was obstructed by a chandala-the lowest of outcastes-whose touch is pollution to the Brahmana. His disciples ran forward, shouting to the chandala to withdraw, but the latter held his ground, and put the pertinent question, how the Master could reconcile such proud exclusiveness with His doctrine of the One Life in all. At once Shri Shankaracharya did homage to the chandala, exclaiming that here indeed was His Guru; who had taught Him to look on phenomena rightly. The story goes that then the supposed chandala revealed himself as none other than Mahadeva, Who had taken this illusory form to teach a lesson, but perhaps one may be permitted to doubt whether there was any immediate and striking change in the appearance of the chandala; only the eyes of spiritual discernment had penetrated beneath the polluted body. It is significant that to-day, in Kerala; the Lord's own birth-place, a struggle is going on to win respect for these same outcastes, and opposition again comes from the orthodox, who refuse to see Mahadeva in the form of these lowly servants of society. Another story is told of His tenderness to His mother. Left a widow soon after the birth of her great Son, she had found it difficult to resign her one treasure to the service of the world - like another mother, in Galilee, some centuries later. Shri Shankaracharya had promised her, however, that not withstanding His Sannyasi vows, He would never neglect any practice necessary for her spiritual well-being; and so, on hearing of her declining health, He abruptly left His disciples, and alone sought her bed-side. There, at her request, He illuminated her mind by lofty philosophical teachings, and so magnificently did He chant the glories of Shiva, in an inspired hymn, that at His call the Messengers of Mahadeva appeared, to take under their charge the soul of the dying woman. But she shrank in terror from the dread appearance of these Mighty Forms, being unable to rise to that grandeur of vision which perceives beauty and tenderness through the stern aspect of power. So her Great Son, in compassion, tuned His song afresh, to the praises of Vishnu, Whose Messengers, coming in less awe-inspiring forms, bore her away to bliss. Now her funeral rites had to be performed, and among friends and kinsfolk of the Nambudiri Brahmana caste, the Master could find none to help Him, because, forsooth, He, as a Sannyasi, was going against orthodox practice in performing any rites. Another theory is that their objections were on the grounds of His rumored illegitimacy. They even went so far as to refuse Him fire for the burning, and so He did all Himself, abone and unassisted, carrying the poor mortal remains to the pyre He had prepared. He exercised His Divine Power to bring fire from the wood of plantain trees, and performed all the due rites which would give peace to the soul of His mother. Again we are reminded of another Prophet Who was "not without honor, save in His own country and among His own people ". That Great One, too, had sometimes to disregard the wishes of her who had given Him His mortal body, but, before passing away, even from the Cross He recommended her to the care of His beloved Apostle, taking pity on her sonless age, and honoring this as His one debt to earth. It is claimed that Shri Shankaracharya rigorously excluded women from His orders, but in view of one tale that is told, this may well be thought a later innovation. The tale is that at a famous debate with Mandana Misra, champion of Vedic Hindu orthodoxy, on the relative virtues of the Sannyasi and householder modes of life, each undertook, if beaten, to relinquish his mode of life, in favor of the other. Mandana had a very learned wife, by name Bharati, who, at Shri Shankaracharya's suggestion, was made umpire in the verbal contest. After several days, the verdict went against her husband, but Bharati claimed the favor of a further discussion, with herself, since Mandana was so far but half defeated. Now, therefore, the dispute was resumed, and lasted for many days further before Bharati was overcome in argument. The Master, indeed, found Himself unable to answer from His own experience some of her arguments on the - Science of Love; so temporarily laying aside the body, He entered into that of a King who had just died and was being mourned by his Queens. He spent a month in their company, to the delight of that kingdom, who found their king marvellously improved; then He returned, to win His victory over Bharati, who, like her husband, became His devoted follower. The tale is a quaint one, but shows no want of respect for women, and their fitness for a Holy Life. It is probable that, in His short life of thirty two years, Shri Shankaracharya wrote little, the three famous commentaries that go under His name being the work of a later Shankaracharya, perhaps overshadowed by his Master and certainly recording His teachings. As in the case of the Christian Gospels, these were transmitted orally among the Master's followers long before they were committed to writing prominent among these teachings occur the Four Qualifications for Discipleship, with which many of us are familiar in their modern garb, as forming the ground-work of At the Feet of the Master. Shri Shankaracharya gives them as Discrimination, Desirelessness, Self-Control and Longing for Liberation, the last being explained by our latest Teacher, as Love, because that word best conveys, to modern understanding, the real meaning of the Fourth Qualification, so often misunderstood by seekers after Moksha. His work was done by the time His body was thirty-two years old, and so He laid it aside as a garment, in a cave of the Himalayas at Kedarnath, whence He was never seen to emerge, though popularly believed to be still in existence, and accessible to His disciples. Madame Blavatsky, in the Secret Doctrine has some interesting things to say about Shri Shankaracharya. Referring to a theory that He was a reincarnation of the Buddha, she denies this, but states that the "personal remains " or astral and mental vehicles of the Lord Gautama were used for this Great Personality, though the Atman, or Higher Self, was quite other, being indeed that of one of the Kumaras, sometimes called "Pratyeka Buddhas," in loftiness equal to a Buddha, but exercising another function in the Great Hierarchy. Shri Shankaracharya is regarded as the abode, for the thirty-two years of His mortal life, of a flame, the highest of the manifested Spiritual Beings. (S.D., Vol. III.) Another significant passage says: " Shankaracharya was reputed to be an Avatara, an assertion the writer implicitly believes in, but which other people are, of course, at liberty to reject. And as such, He took the body of a Southern Indian, newly-born, Brahmana body; that body, for reasons as important as they are mysterious to us, is said to have been animated by Gautama's personal remains. This divine Non-Ego chose as its own Upadhi (physical basis), the ethereal, human ego of a great Sage in this world of forms, as the fittest vehicle for the Spirit to descend into." (S. D Vol. III, p. 80.)