From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 01:20:46 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Dear Alan Message-ID: In message <34079CEF.4D1C@globalserve.net>, libidium writes >I tried to imagine you in >slacks and tweed jacket (with the arm patches of course) on the rocks >enjoying this, but can't get past the black hat, outfit, and buckled >shoes of my first image (Cromwellian I believe). See Pic of me on the website. That should dispel all your illusions ... Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 31 Aug 97 21:44:06 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: HPB and Mormonism Message-ID: <199709010443.VAA07746@scv3.apple.com> >It is reported in HPB's biographies that during her travels in 1855 in the >US, she travelled to Salt Lake City to meet the Mormons. In a recent >coverage of Mormons in Time/Newsweek, (commemorating the travel of Mormons >from Illinois to Salt Lake City) one of the things that I noticed was their >belief in the second coming of Christ. > >In Key to Theosophy, HPB mentions about coming of Messenger from the Great >White Lodge and I am wondering whether there was some connection between >what she knew or was told by her Guardian and her trip to Salt Lake City and >their belief in second coming. One thing worth noting was that the founder >of Mormons was not a scholar or a PhD, just a common man (who was >assasinated). Hello Doss, Joseph Smith had been a Mason and a lot of the early occult influence on HPB was in the library of Prince Dolgorukii, as Paul has documented. There is a lot of estoeric Masonry in both systems and there are reports of HPB discussing esoteric Masonry with startled Masons of high degree. I'm sure that given her gift of gab she would have been able to talk knowingly with the Mormons about their own Masonically-derived system. Whether the particular point you mentioned is a point of historical contact with Mormonism I couldn't say, as the theme of the messenger from heaven is not original to either HPB or the Mormons. It could have been derived from a number of shared or independent sources, including Christianity as well as theurgical Neo-Platonism and other traditions; or by independent spiritual experience. Are there any less ambiguous matches between the Mormon system and her writings? I ask this not in a challenging way. You've raised a very interesting and legitimate issue that I don't recall encountering before. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 01:37:46 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: alone & judgement Message-ID: <340A54A9.10F6@globalserve.net> Chuck, you wrote: > Easy, I would have given the child to the woman who could pay me the most for > it and had the other woman executed so she would not be a problem in the > future. That way I could be sure that the child would be brought up in a > home that could properly provide for it without being a burden to the > kingdom. But Chuck, after paying you the most, of the two, she would then be the poorest, so that in killing the other, you would be throwing the poor baby into poverty created by yourself and probably a childhood with a neurotic mother. So, the initial abundance presented to you would have been diminished by your decision. No can accept, even in jest. AR From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 06:53:06 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: HPB and Mormons Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970901115306.00c2ed10@mail.eden.com> Hi My interest came about because HPB took the trouble to make the journey to Salt Lake City when travel was very difficult. In those days, the nearest place to any kind of civilization was 800 miles away from Salt Lake City. I am sure HPB would have had her own reasons or her Guardian might have told her -- as He had done -- telling her not to go to Louisiana in her interest in Voodoo. mkr ------------------------------------ At 11:59 PM 8/31/97 -0400, you wrote: >On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > >> It is reported in HPB's biographies that during her travels in 1855 in the >> US, she travelled to Salt Lake City to meet the Mormons. In a recent >> coverage of Mormons in Time/Newsweek, (commemorating the travel of Mormons >> from Illinois to Salt Lake City) one of the things that I noticed was their >> belief in the second coming of Christ. >> >> In Key to Theosophy, HPB mentions about coming of Messenger from the Great >> White Lodge and I am wondering whether there was some connection between >> what she knew or was told by her Guardian and her trip to Salt Lake City and >> their belief in second coming. One thing worth noting was that the founder >> of Mormons was not a scholar or a PhD, just a common man (who was assasinated). >> >> Any thoughts? >> >> mkr > >I don't really have any ideas, but I do have a little info. Joseph Smith >Jr., the Mormon founder/First Prophet, had his first vision in 1823, after >he had read James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that >giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given >him", and acted under its direction. A messenger, named Moroni, was "sent >by God" to tell Smith of two golden plates which were buried underneath a >rock in Manchester, New York. After a series of visions, he went there, >lifted up the stone, and found the items. Two golden tablets, two stones, >and a breastplate. > >I don't know much else, but I do have the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and >Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price in my possession. I haven't gone >too deeply into them, but if anyone has any questions about anything, I >can try to look up the answers. In the PGP, there is a short >autobiography of Smith. I may read that tonight. It was mainly written >as a means of countering false accusations in much the same way that HPB >had done in her introduction to the SD, and of which Sinnet wrote in the >Occult book (I can't remember the title, but I know it had the word >"Occult" in it.) > >Oh, and the two stones were called Urim and Thummim. Perhaps someone with >a better knowledge of language than I could discover the meanings of these >names. (They are probably in one of the mormon books, but, like I said, I >haven't really read them yet.) > >--- >Jaqi. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 06:57:17 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: HPB and Mormonism Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970901115717.00c32f10@mail.eden.com> Hi, Tim: I just posted a msg in response to Jaqi's msg. >From a historical point of view, it would be interesting to find out if there was anything anywhere which gives us a clue to why HPB took the trouble to travel to Salt Lake City. I wonder whether we will ever find out anything at all. mkr ---------------- At 12:43 AM 9/1/97 -0400, Tim Maroney wrote: >>It is reported in HPB's biographies that during her travels in 1855 in the >>US, she travelled to Salt Lake City to meet the Mormons. In a recent >>coverage of Mormons in Time/Newsweek, (commemorating the travel of Mormons >>from Illinois to Salt Lake City) one of the things that I noticed was their >>belief in the second coming of Christ. >> >>In Key to Theosophy, HPB mentions about coming of Messenger from the Great >>White Lodge and I am wondering whether there was some connection between >>what she knew or was told by her Guardian and her trip to Salt Lake City and >>their belief in second coming. One thing worth noting was that the founder >>of Mormons was not a scholar or a PhD, just a common man (who was >>assasinated). > >Hello Doss, > >Joseph Smith had been a Mason and a lot of the early occult influence on >HPB was in the library of Prince Dolgorukii, as Paul has documented. >There is a lot of estoeric Masonry in both systems and there are reports >of HPB discussing esoteric Masonry with startled Masons of high degree. >I'm sure that given her gift of gab she would have been able to talk >knowingly with the Mormons about their own Masonically-derived system. > >Whether the particular point you mentioned is a point of historical >contact with Mormonism I couldn't say, as the theme of the messenger from >heaven is not original to either HPB or the Mormons. It could have been >derived from a number of shared or independent sources, including >Christianity as well as theurgical Neo-Platonism and other traditions; or >by independent spiritual experience. > >Are there any less ambiguous matches between the Mormon system and her >writings? I ask this not in a challenging way. You've raised a very >interesting and legitimate issue that I don't recall encountering before. > >-- >Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 07:10:29 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Today Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970901121029.00b4feac@mail.eden.com> At 06:23 PM 8/31/97 -0400, libidia wrote: >Doss, you said: >> No need to carry anything. Computer Keyboard and theos-l is all that is >> needed. >> >> Keyboard is mightier than sword! >Finally, I agree. I have not been to bed in two days, finally, finding >time and peace to explore the Internet. First thing I did was go to >Alan's page then to Spiritweb. Of course I found all the stuff on >theosophy and lots on Druids. Peter was thrilled to copy your book Alan >and asked me why there were so many spellings of the word Kaballah. >Turns out he was upstairs reading about it at exactly the time I was >downloading your book! He will not ask you himself??!! All of this lead >to having dinner with him, the first time we have spent time together in >many months, and I invited him to talk and I would just listen. Usually >he refuses to communicate, but he talked about theosophy with an >animation I had not seen in him in many years. Your msg made my day. There is always with a sense of joy when I see anything that makes anyone happier. Many of us get animated when we discuss about theosophy and related matters -- which is simply because they relate to something which is in the core of our being. I hope what has started will improve and make you both improve communications. Very often he would >say,"do you know what I mean by that?". Guess what guys, I did, and >enough to be able to discuss the different "factions" within Theosophy. >We took a break when we started to argue about hierarchical structure. >I am struggling still with a great sadness that I think my husband may >have found his path and it does not include me in the traditional sense >as I have had my time, but then I remembered we started this >relationship sitting on the roof of a friends house one particularly >clear star filled night and shared our dreams of determination to follow >a path of truth, although at that time we had no idea what truth meant >and what a struggle it could be. And right at the moment I was thinking >of these things, he shouted down to me to turn on the TV because >Princess Di was dead. > Each one of us have to find our own way and what is right for one may or may not be right for the other. The fact that he was responding to the news of Di's death seems to indicate he is ok. I also accidentally turned on TV and caught the story from the start. >I have been dealing with that tragic event since then and am at peace >with the change in me in just a few months. After the shock and sense >of loss, I felt it in my "heart" and could join that feeling with my >"head" that the body in that box covered with the royal standard we saw >being taken "home" was just a shell. the spirit that was Di has passed >on to the true home in the ultimate joy of the process of "life". I am >not a royalist but I recognized Di along time ago as a relatively pure >spirit dealing with the hyprocracy of thousands of years in her >particular arena. Kinds of ties in with your comments Jaqi. The few >glimpses of the 15 year old William were not enough to get a sense of >whether that tall beauty of a body she bequeathed has the strength to >seek the Grail and hence influence a new generation. > >Today, Peter is putting together the Sept issue of the TO Theosphy Group >newsletter and starting the arrangements he has volunteered for some >long-named visiting speaker and, finally, he goes in peace with my >love. Every so often though I hope to remind him that we "masses" are >on our own path and have a place too! >Thanks guys. Annette. The above gives me an idea. Many Lodges and Centers produce newsletters. If any of them would be willing, then I can arrange to scan them and post them as and when the newsletters come out. This would provide additional material for us to discuss and may benefit from them. Any ideas from anyone? Peace and harmony and happiness to all. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:29:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HPB and Mormons Message-ID: <970901132918_1488563502@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-08-31 21:30:21 EDT, you write: > BTW, I believe Mormon founder was assasinated in Illinois. > Sure was, and the Mormons turned the place into a tourist attraction and have been making money hand over fist ever since. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 12:34:32 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: HPB and Mormons Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970901173432.0123f748@mail.eden.com> At 01:30 PM 9/1/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-08-31 21:30:21 EDT, you write: > >> BTW, I believe Mormon founder was assasinated in Illinois. >> >> > >Sure was, and the Mormons turned the place into a tourist attraction and have >been making money hand over fist ever since. > >Chuck the Heretic > How far is the place from Chicago? Did not realize they just saw the business side very quickly. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 13:48:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: alone & judgement Message-ID: <970901134509_858557876@emout08.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-01 08:56:36 EDT, you write: >But Chuck, after paying you the most, of the two, she would then be the >poorest, so that in killing the other, you would be throwing the poor >baby into poverty created by yourself and probably a childhood with a >neurotic mother. So, the initial abundance presented to you would have >been diminished by your decision. No can accept, even in jest. >AR I didn't say I would keep the money, after all, king solomon had gold coming out of his ears (which must have looked pretty silly). The other option would have been to have both women executed and sold the child to the local used baby dealer (a common profession in them thar' ancient days). You see, the problem was not who was the real mother, who even who would be the best mother. The problem from the standpoint of the king is that their brawling was disturbing the neighbors and thus the peace of the kingdom. Solomon's solution makes a nice, sentimental story, but I think Vlad the Impaler would have solved the problem in a much more entertaining manner. Now, if you had asked me to view it as a Roman Emporer, my answer would have been to have the women fight to the death in the arena for it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 14:35:31 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Theos-L digest 1208 Message-ID: <970901143521_-701140771@emout11.mail.aol.com> I read with interest Gary S.'s comments concerning some of Vincent's. Herewith is my "take" on some of their's. What is a "black hole?" In my limited understanding it is an accumulation of matter of sufficient density to create a gravitational field of such magnitude that nothing, not even light, can escape from it. Since light radiation is essential in order for any object to be detected visually, it follows that such stellar objects cannot be seen through optical telescopes. Hence the description "black [i.e. invisible] holes." Their presence has to be detected by other than visual means (most commonly by their gravitational influence on other objects in their vicinity). What do "black holes" ... "DO?" Essentially they compress. That is, the immense gravitational field of a "black hole" not only tends to capture any matter that comes within its reach but also to continually draw closer together all of the atoms that comprise the "black hole." This process, in turn, must continually raise both its temperature and pressure and, most importantly, increase the intensity of its gravitational field ... which, in turn, increases its temperature and pressure etc. etc. I do not know what the current scientfic views may be concerning the probability of a "black hole" eventually reaching a state of relative equilibrium. Astrophysicists have determined the life-cycle of stars but, to the best of my admittedly meager knowledge, have not determined the life-cycle of "black holes." My conjecture (and it is purely that) is that they do eventually tend to reach relative equilibrium wherein the internal "resistance" to further compression is equal to the fantastic gravitational force that seeks to continue the compression process. Perhaps this is why no explosion ("death") of a "black hole" has ever been detected. I use the term "relative equilibrium" because "black holes" never become truly static or inert due to their more or less continuous increase in mass (and pressure and temperature and ...) due to acquisition of additional matter that is captured by their gravitational influence. But Gary S. wonders if our present physical universe might have originated from a "black hole." My speculation is that it did. But how could this occur if "black holes" do in fact ultimately "stabilize?" The answer may lie in the size of the "black hole." What I suggest is that if a "black hole" reaches sufficient mass (i.e. "critical mass") it will explode rather than compress further ... and a new universe will be born. This does not seem to happen with any of the "black holes" detected thus far and I suspect that is because, as immense as they are, they are still too small to ever attain the critical mass necessary to trigger a nuclear explosion. But what about "the mother of all black holes" --- a "black hole" that existed in the far reaches of time --- so vast that it contained ALL of the matter that now comprises our physical universe? Could such an object, over eons of time, ultimately compress sufficiently to reach critical mass and explode ("the mother of all nuclear explosions") into a new physical universe? I suggest to Gary S. and others that it could ... AND THAT IT DID! Looking still further into the past I can conceive of this having happened not once but many times ... and that it will continue to happen in the future. This, I believe, answers Gary's question: what is the opposite of a "black hole?" Answer: an expanding physical universe. He also asks: are physical and spiritual light the same or opposites? My view is --- "none of the above." Physical light is photons that, by reflection, enable things to be seen. Spiritual light is what enables us to perceive truth and reality rather than physical things. Thus they are not readily comparable. Are we made "in the image and likeness of God?" I believe the answer is "Yes" ... but in the Spiritual, not physical, image and likeness. It has always surprised me that Christians, especially Fundamentalist Christians, depict an unlimited God ... and then promptly limit this Deity by ascribing to it one head, two arms, two legs etc.. Does God exist in the flesh as well as in spirit? I believe the answer is "Yes." H.P. Blavatsky has stated that there are "no dead atoms" in the universe. And she probably also stated or at least implied (and, if she didn't, I think she should have) that there is nothing existent in which God is not. Thus the answer to Gary must be "Yes" because "God" is everywhere. Gary further asks: how do physical and spiritual realities compare? I maintain that the answer is primarily one of density. That is, what we call "physical" is merely a denser version of that which we call "spiritual." Remember the Hermetic axiom: As Above So Below. Finally, he asks: where did our universe come from? This question has already been answered above. Briefly stated again, I maintain that our present universe is the result of a "Big Bang" which, in turn, resulted from a prior "Big Crunch" which resulted from a prior "Big Bang" which, in turn ... Namaste --- Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 21:33:27 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Number 7 Message-ID: <340B6CE7.2F22@sprynet.com> Vincent Beall wrote: > If the problem concerns metamathematics which is really very modern, one > would consider the null set, however, ancient metaphysics would 'not' > presume the null set as it would actually be a consideration of a fouth > element. Where one was considering the Hindu G-dhead for instance, the > practical aspect of trinity would be lost; the null set would not > represent any expression of the G-dhead, where subject of consideration > is G-d. Either it's mathematics or it's not. It can't be mathematics, but only as it suits oneself; that way leads to the assumption that ego is supreme. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:29:57 -0700 From: ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net Subject: Re: THEOS-BUDS digest 256 Message-ID: <199709022029.NAA11101@mailtod-2.alma.webtv.net> Greetings. I am a very recent list member here, and the list seems very quiet. I'm a little trepidatious about unbridling my enthusiasm, could anyone bring me up to date a little on Theos-buds discussions, or help direct me to a Theos-buds archive? I'm still wondering if the tone of this list is what I had hoped, I see great promise in having another look at Theosophy through the eyes of science as it developed after some of HPB's most remarkable writings (Isis Unveiled, for example), and I was encouraged by seeing Theosphical websites that referred to the work of David Bohm in this context. I think we may have at last most of the scientific concepts to do justice to the *miracuclous* things that Theosophists and Spiritualists have described, and I am indeed anxious to discuss such matters. Many thanks. Rob// ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 20:48:15 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: The Number 7 Message-ID: <340B624F.C3C@dmv.com> Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Vincent Beall wrote: > > If the problem concerns metamathematics which is really very modern, one > > would consider the null set, however, ancient metaphysics would 'not' > > presume the null set as it would actually be a consideration of a fouth > > element. Where one was considering the Hindu G-dhead for instance, the > > practical aspect of trinity would be lost; the null set would not > > represent any expression of the G-dhead, where subject of consideration > > is G-d. > > Either it's mathematics or it's not. It can't be mathematics, but only > as it suits oneself; that way leads to the assumption that ego is > supreme. > > Bart Lidofsky Maybe it's just statisical combinations and not set theory. Think that through. Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 19:46:29 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification Message-ID: <199709020246.TAA11030@palrel3.hp.com> Assuming a teacher has traveled the long road to spiritual experience, I wonder from a strictly pedagogic point of view, how he or she can make a case for impulse control and delayed gratification without just saying, "You haven't experienced what I'm promising. For now just go through the motions. If you do go through the motions with patience, you will see what I mean and will thenceforth do it because you want to. Along the way, you will get a few signs of encouragement, as well as many opportunities to bail out for easier pleasures." The alternative for a seeker following spiritual disciplines is possibly getting burnt so many thousands of times by wrong choice that he or she tires of the Maya game and is desperately willing to try anything else. But I'm not so sure about the necessity of that. Addicts will cling to their drugs or alcohol even when they are in absolute misery - to the point of death. Enter the usefulness of rules ... Ann Ree Colton called rules checkreins upon scatteredness and impulsiveness. While thinking about it, it struck me how the quickly achieved "sugar high" pleasures of life can displace the long journey to more durable bliss ecstasies. For example, quickly bailing out of a relationship for an affair or an apparently fairy tale romance requires little work, but the resulting pleasures also fade quickly. There is also an analogue of a "sugar crash" afterwards. Learning what it is to truly love a person for their sake even after you have seen their worst (and they've seen you at your worst) is a greater pleasure but requires a longer and more pain-filled journey. You would never have known what you were missing if you had abandoned your journey to the mountain top for the pleasures quickly attained at the base of the mountain. Sai Baba likened it to going to a far away destination. For a while, he says, you just have to concern yourself with the careful driving of the car. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 22:36:15 -0700 From: ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 1208 Message-ID: <199709020536.WAA20089@mailtod-1.alma.webtv.net> Greetings. re: DS Arthur's comments I am wondering if anyone has taken to thinking of a hologram of a black hole being what Paralastor wasps use as the blueprint for their nests in Rupert Sheldrake's second book on Morphic/Morphogenetic Feilds. Or comparing this to the variation on Kirlian photography supposedly producing a sub-double rather than a phantom, by cutting a hole in the middle of a leaf. The book is "Vibrational Medicine" or "Vibrational Healing". The work was supposedly done by Electronographic image author experimenter, Ion Dumitrescu. I am also wondering if anyone is familiar with an anecdote that may have been in "One...Two...Three...Infinity" by George Gamow about where Einstein supposedly stood dumbstruck in traffic on having heard of an idea of Pascal Jordan's that the cosmology could proceed without *bangs* because a planet could form of "positive and negative nothingnesses"-or if this is essentially the same as Nikola Tesla's notorious assertions that planets could form- including artificial ones- from "aether whirls"? Rob//ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:46:46 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Seven Message-ID: <199709021252.IAA25666@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Seven > Date: Friday, August 29, 1997 12:26 PM > Bart, I received this message from Mary Abdill. You might want to make a note of the changes. Thank you ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ann, The page looks great. It's fine to use our email, but it's been changed to: mabdill@idt.net. Also, the phone, 212-751-2484, is 4 years out of date and is no longer our phone number. Pls just use the second phone, also a 212 area code. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:56:19 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification Message-ID: <199709021252.IAA25669@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Titus Roth > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification > Date: Monday, September 01, 1997 9:46 PM > > You would > never have known what you were missing if you had abandoned your journey to > the mountain top for the pleasures quickly attained at the base of the > mountain. > > Sai Baba likened it to going to a far away destination. For a while, he says, > you just have to concern yourself with the careful driving of the car. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but what do you do when your mentor/guru/teacher ABANDONS you. And has not left a successor or sufficient teachings that one feels they can continue on that particular path. I've been there twice. Once when the guru retired to Hawaii and wanted to have as little as possible to do with his disciples and the other who decided a business money-making path was more important than the church he headed. Frankly, the only thing that has sustained me over the years is the Alice Bailey material. Seems these teachers have a tendency to burn out somewhere along the way. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:11:50 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Seven Message-ID: <199709021308.JAA28072@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Seven > Date: Friday, August 29, 1997 12:26 PM > > > And isn't there some sense to the claim that ages 7, 14, 21, > > 28, 35, 42 are all somehow turning points? > > It originated with Aristotle, who probably got it from astrology. > The astrological system according to Acker and Sakoin's book, "Predictive Astrology" are: 1. First four years ruled by the Moon.(physical growth) 2. Age 5-14, under rulership of Mercury (skills of communication) 3. Ages 15-22, ruled by Venus (social relationships) 4. Ages 22-42, ruled by the Sun. Said to be time it takes to raise a child.(Full development of individual.) 5. Ages 42-56 ruled by Mars (seeks status, authority, power) 6. Ages 57-58, ruled by Jupiter (philosophical and reflective) 7. Ages 68-? ruled by Saturn (crystallization, pattern of karmic unfoldment is closed.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:36:23 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: PURPOSE OF THIS LIST - Listening-l! (fwd) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970902153623.006b7c5c@mail.eden.com> At 07:50 AM 9/2/97 -0700, Valerie Lombard wrote: >On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > >> I think it was very appropriate you posted the msg describing the >> historical events that took place with Krishnamurti Trusts, Rajagopal >> etc. >> >> In a recent book by the daughter of one of the Trustees of the Trusts >> headed by Rajagopal, mentions that some of the published material edited >> by Rajagopal was found to be far different from what K actually said >> during his talks and discussions. So readers may have to keep this in >> mind when reading some of the K material. Is it possible that Rajagopal >> was trying to introduce *his* Theosophical ideas into the K material by >> using his editorial function? >> >> mkr >> >vl: I do not wish to speculate what his intentions may have >been concerning his editorial capacity. But, he was found liable for >transferring K.'s foundation funds to the Theosophical Society, which >was in violation of K.'s foundation bylaws. > This is a very interesting information that I am seeing for the first time. Could you tell me where I could find the full account of above instance of transfer of funds. It is very sad that Rajagopal could not fully understand and benefit by what K has been speaking about. thanks. MKR > However, I only brought this up, because people tend to think >that resolving daily challenges by understanding the inward state of >affairs was something to be done away from the challenges of living and >that K. was not dealing with an ego within. He was facing the basic >problems of aggression, oppression that all human being have to deal >with. But he dealt with it by facing the inward challenges of his own >conditioning, and therefore effecting freedom to have access to what he >had earned in his life. > > It had been suggested by some posters on this mailing list that >one cannot verify whether one is dealing with their ego in a intelligent >manner, and that when it comes to subjective matters, there is no way of >telling if their approach is free from conflict or not. And I was showing >that K. was not just *telling* people to mesmerize themselves with words >that sound like spiritual riddles, but that he was facing his conditioning >which was stimulated by the various ordeals arising in his daily life. In >looking at the truth about ourselves *without fighting against it*, we get >exactly what we have coming to us in the end--as was seen in this one >example. > > I'm sure there are various versions of the details involved that >may vary, but the main point is that Raja was egotistically exerting his >power to keep K. beholding to the Theosophical Society's ideology, >regardless of K.'s change of heart. And K. was no longer interested >in feeding his or anyone else's egotistical demands. > > And this tells us that one does *not* have to succumb to the ego's >overbearing coercions or intimidations nor does one have to resort to >becoming an aggressor in order to be free of the one who wishes to rule >over you, if you first deal with the seed of aggression within yourself, >adequately/intelligently. While it is true that one takes technical >steps to safeguard physical security, that does not include crossing the >line by maliciously defaming another's character. Then, one is attempting >to dominate the spirit of another in order to fulfill the ego's desire to >be "superior" or "more important" than another. > > Your response is appreciated. > > Take care, > > Valerie Lombard > vlombard@lombard.cyberverse.com > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:23:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HPB and Mormons Message-ID: <970902132135_213048248@emout14.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-01 17:54:54 EDT, you write: >How far is the place from Chicago? Did not realize they just saw the >business side very quickly. > >mkr at least 400 miles. It's at the other end of the state. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:15:26 -0700 From: Estrella Subject: Salt Lake city Message-ID: <340C57BE.1792@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> > >From a historical point of view, it would be interesting to find out if > there was anything anywhere which gives us a clue to why HPB took the > trouble to travel to Salt Lake City. I wonder whether we will ever find out > anything at all. > > mkr > The valley of the monuments, Doss. remember. That site is an incredible center of energy, very mystical.I believe is a very good site for meditate. I myself i'm very fond of that site. hope to visit it someday. Estrella From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:21:47 -0700 From: Estrella Subject: Hi Annette Message-ID: <340C593B.CF0@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> Sorry to post this so late, but seems i erased accidentaly my early digests, and my server was out when i tried to send you this. Hi Annette, thanks for the good taughts. Asterix is a comic book caracter. they had made some pictures of it, i do not know if the episode "the great travel" they had made it a picture or not. but you can look for it in a book store. it's great. one of the best comics i've ever seen. is from France. Thanks for your comments on my dreams. yes, i think i do dream vividly. and i love it. is in this way i can reach the persons i love. I do not know if i do dream astral travel , but i love to think of it is. I love dreams. speccialy when they are good. Thanks for your lovely taughts. Yep, i believe Doss needs that wand for removing the bad vibes in goverment offices. Hoping to know from you soon Estrella P.S. a big salute from Mexico. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:31:55 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Salt Lake city Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970902213155.015fecac@mail.eden.com> At 03:19 PM 9/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >> >From a historical point of view, it would be interesting to find out if >> there was anything anywhere which gives us a clue to why HPB took the >> trouble to travel to Salt Lake City. I wonder whether we will ever find out >> anything at all. >> >> mkr >> > >The valley of the monuments, Doss. remember. That site is an incredible >center of energy, very mystical.I believe is a very good site for >meditate. >I myself i'm very fond of that site. hope to visit it someday. > >Estrella > There is a tradition that during her travels HPB seems to have buried some magnetized objects in certain places and one of them being San Antonio, Texas. It is quite possible that she did the same in Salt Lake City. From what you say about Salt Lake City, this is a distinct possibility. Take care. .......doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:33:49 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Hi Annette Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970902213349.01575f5c@mail.eden.com> At 03:26 PM 9/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >Thanks for your lovely taughts. Yep, i believe Doss needs that wand for >removing the bad vibes in goverment offices. >Hoping to know from you soon >Estrella > No wand can help, in my humble opinion (IMHO). Need some honest politicians, very difficult to find these days anywhere! ......doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:07:08 -0700 From: ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net Subject: Hello Message-ID: <199709022207.PAA16220@mailtod-2.alma.webtv.net> --WebTV-Mail-2005158951-6012 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hello. I am reposting a message to the Theos-buds list here, at the suggestion of M K Ramadoss; why not? My questions apply to Theos-l as well, including whether there is a list archive. Best, Rob// ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net --WebTV-Mail-2005158951-6012 Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:29:57 -0700 From: ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net Subject: Re: THEOS-BUDS digest 256 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Greetings. I am a very recent list member here, and the list seems very quiet. I'm a little trepidatious about unbridling my enthusiasm, could anyone bring me up to date a little on Theos-buds discussions, or help direct me to a Theos-buds archive? I'm still wondering if the tone of this list is what I had hoped, I see great promise in having another look at Theosophy through the eyes of science as it developed after some of HPB's most remarkable writings (Isis Unveiled, for example), and I was encouraged by seeing Theosphical websites that referred to the work of David Bohm in this context. I think we may have at last most of the scientific concepts to do justice to the *miracuclous* things that Theosophists and Spiritualists have described, and I am indeed anxious to discuss such matters. Many thanks. Rob// ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net --WebTV-Mail-2005158951-6012-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 18:18:48 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Hello Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970902231848.011e5000@mail.eden.com> At 06:07 PM 9/2/97 -0400, you wrote: > >--WebTV-Mail-2005158951-6012 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > >Hello. > > I am reposting a message to the Theos-buds list here, at the >suggestion of M K Ramadoss; why not? >My questions apply to Theos-l as well, including whether there is a list >archive. > Yes. send a msg to listserv@vnet.net with the following in the body of the msg: index theos-l index theos-buds index theos-news After getting the index, use the get command. More info on the command canbe obtained by sending a msg to listserv@vnet.net with the following in the body of the msg. help get MKR -------------------------------------------- >Best, > >Rob// ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net > >--WebTV-Mail-2005158951-6012 >Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT > >From: ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net >Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:29:57 -0700 >To: theos-buds@vnet.net >Subject: Re: THEOS-BUDS digest 256 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) > >Greetings. > >I am a very recent list member here, and the list seems very quiet. I'm >a little trepidatious about unbridling my enthusiasm, could anyone bring >me up to date a little on Theos-buds discussions, or help direct me to a >Theos-buds archive? > >I'm still wondering if the tone of this list is what I had hoped, I see >great promise in having another look at Theosophy through the eyes of >science as it developed after some of HPB's most remarkable writings >(Isis Unveiled, for example), and I was encouraged by seeing Theosphical >websites that referred to the work of David Bohm in this context. > >I think we may have at last most of the scientific concepts to do >justice to the *miracuclous* things that Theosophists and Spiritualists >have described, and I am indeed anxious to discuss such matters. > >Many thanks. > >Rob// ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net > >--WebTV-Mail-2005158951-6012-- > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:31:58 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification Message-ID: <199709022332.QAA21389@palrel3.hp.com> I wrote: >> You would never have known what you were missing if you had abandoned your >> journey to the mountain top for the pleasures quickly attained at the base >> of the mountain. >> Sai Baba likened it to going to a far away destination. For a while, he says, >> you just have to concern yourself with the careful driving of the car. "A. Safron" asked: > I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but what do you do when > your mentor/guru/teacher ABANDONS you. And has not left a successor > or sufficient teachings that one feels they can continue on that particular > path. I've been there twice. Once when the guru retired to Hawaii and > wanted to have as little as possible to do with his disciples and the other > who decided a business money-making path was more important than > the church he headed. I think we may be talking about different things. There are long paths and short paths. I was pointing out that good things take time and often present few tangible rewards while you work towards them. Frequently there are inferior substitutes that give instant rewards but that can distract you from your true path. The final result of the long path is a reward, but how do you communicate that to a person who has not already been there? Great teachers of the past have left hints. Initially, I think you have take them on faith until they begin to work for you. This is not a blind faith, but a testing faith. As I understand your question, it is, "What do you do if you find yourself following the path of a bad teacher?" My only answer is, bail out. Be discriminating before you sign up as someone's student. If you don't find a living ethical teacher, use the guideposts from teachers of the past. It looks like the Alice Bailey material works for you. You just have to use your intuition in applying it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 19:38:52 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: "sugar highs" Message-ID: <340CA38C.1B15@globalserve.net> Titus wrote: > Assuming a teacher has traveled the long road to spiritual experience, I > wonder from a strictly pedagogic point of view, how he or she can make a case > for impulse control and delayed gratification without just saying, "You > haven't experienced what I'm promising. For now just go through the motions. > If you do go through the motions with patience, you will see what I mean and > will thenceforth do it because you want to. Along the way, you will get a few > signs of encouragement, as well as many opportunities to bail out for easier > pleasures." and the rest....... Oh YEAH. Exquisitely put Titus. Hits one on the chin and stays. Thanks. Annette From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 07:39:55 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification Message-ID: <199709031243.IAA05445@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Titus Roth > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification > Date: Tuesday, September 02, 1997 6:32 PM > The final result of the long path is a reward, but how do you > communicate that to a person who has not already been there? > In my experience, you can't, except in a sketchy way. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 11:28:01 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Salt Lake city Message-ID: <199709031624.MAA01401@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Estrella > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Salt Lake city > Date: Tuesday, September 02, 1997 2:19 PM > > > >From a historical point of view, it would be interesting to find out if > > there was anything anywhere which gives us a clue to why HPB took the > > trouble to travel to Salt Lake City. I wonder whether we will ever find out > > anything at all. > > > > mkr > > > > The valley of the monuments, Doss. remember. That site is an incredible > center of energy, very mystical.I believe is a very good site for > meditate. > I myself i'm very fond of that site. hope to visit it someday. > > Estrella I'm curious. What sites and monuments would you find mystical or good to meditate in Chicago. Of course, I've got an advantage, I live here, so I have my favorites. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:25:37 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Black Holes, White Holes & Laya Centers Message-ID: <199709031954.PAA15378@NetGSI.com> Dennis, I enjoyed your comments on Black Holes. But I can't agree with everything (so what else is new? :-) ) A Black Hole takes in matter and gives off radiation and heat (at least according to Steven Hawking--personally I don't follow all the math). This is my definition of a device that converts matter to energy (alias spirit). If they exist, then their polar counterparts--White Holes-- must also exist. White Holes would give off matter and take in radiation and heat, just the opposite of Black Holes. If we allow that this is so, then I can't help but see a mighty large connection between White Holes and HPB's laya centers. According to HPB, a laya center is a dimensionless point in space through which passes the higher substances into matter (these being spiritual, causal, mental, astral, and etheric substances). HPB says (somewhere?) that all matter gets to the physical plane via these laya centers. Although she never mentions the opposite journey (at least I can't find any good quotes) I have to assume that they exist--i.e., that black holes convert matter into spirit. Something to think about, anyway. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 15:42:19 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Rules Message-ID: <199709031954.PAA15381@NetGSI.com> Titus, I really enjoyed your comments, and have put in a few of my own. >Assuming a teacher has traveled the long road to spiritual experience, I >wonder from a strictly pedagogic point of view, how he or she can make a case >for impulse control and delayed gratification without just saying, "You >haven't experienced what I'm promising. For now just go through the motions. >If you do go through the motions with patience, you will see what I mean and >will thenceforth do it because you want to. Along the way, you will get a few >signs of encouragement, as well as many opportunities to bail out for easier >pleasures." Actually, I suspect that he would say exactly this. >The alternative for a seeker following spiritual disciplines is possibly >getting burnt so many thousands of times by wrong choice that he or she tires >of the Maya game and is desperately willing to try anything else. But I'm not >so sure about the necessity of that. Addicts will cling to their drugs or >alcohol even when they are in absolute misery - to the point of death. Sorry, you lose me on this one. Why, prey tell, would a seeker get burned so many times?? A dabbler, perhaps. But a seeker, only once I should thing (a really slow learner, many twice). "Addicts" are not seekers. Any self-respecting guru will turn down an "addict" as a chela. But you are right in the sense that getting "burned" (or bored) over and over is a real goad to tread the Path. But it is usually only after getting burned many times that one becomes a seeker and even tries any "spriitual disciplines." I believe that only after the flame or hunger for Gnosis is lit within one, can the Path be tread with any results. >Enter the usefulness of rules ... > >Ann Ree Colton called rules checkreins upon scatteredness and >impulsiveness. The only real rule necessary for a seeker is to "do as thou wilt" so long as you understand that "thou" refers to the individuality and not the personality. Rules, in general,will bind one rather than free one. HPB says that golden chains (which are what rules are) will bind as surely as iron chains. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 03 Sep 1997 15:46:03 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709032246.PAA03913@palrel1.hp.com> "Jerry Schueler" wrote: > HPB says that golden chains (which are what rules are) will bind as surely > as iron chains. I have an idea what she may have meant, but for confirmation, do you have the reference to where she said this? Thanks. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 07:29:30 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Violent Women? Message-ID: <34186200.49035337@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> The general response from people on this list to claims of feminism's having gone to extremes is that such claims are false, insignificant, and/or sexist. The belief in its insignificance is based on the idea that male violence towards women is far more of a problem than anything feminism has caused. Believing, at least, that male violence towards women is far more of a problem than is female violence towards men, I have participated in a currently ongoing newsgroup discussion, disagreeing with anti-feminist men who are claiming that women have no right to the special treatment they have received (an example of which was when I wrote statements on this list saying a few ways in which I thought men are superior to women and a few ways in which I thought women are superior to men, I was roundly criticized for my sexism, and then, when someone else posted 40 or so ways in which she thought women were superior to men and no ways in which she thought men are superior to women, she was widely hailed as a heroine) since they are just as violent towards men as men are towards them. The following is a sample of what they use as justification for their opinion. I still find it hard to believe. I generally assume that when there are two sides to an issue, studies can be found to support the opinions of both sides. I am interested in finding results of studies which disagree with the following report: THE FEMINIST VIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VS SCIENTIFIC STUDIES We want to make it clear that we have been working to end domestic violence for over a decade. One of us is an original incorporator of our local abuse shelter. We are members of the "Century Club"; those who contribute over $100 to the local women's shelter. We support the services they provide to victims. However, much of the women's shelter movement is seriously misinformed about the causes and scope of the domestic violence problem. This misunderstanding of the domestic violence issue is so extensive that city and county governments, the courts, law enforcement, prosecutor's offices, mental health clinics, and other tax supported agencies are now structuring programs based on feminist propaganda rather than responsible scientific studies. The following is a summary of domestic violence research. Please, help get this important research on the subject of domestic violence to the public. THE FEMINIST VIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VS SCIENTIFIC STUDIES One of the most pervasive myths of our society is that domestic violence is something men do to women. Solid scientific research reveals that domestic violence is something women do to men more frequently than men do it to women. While it is true that men account for most violence outside the home, women instigate most domestic violence and they injure men more frequently and more severely. The Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, under grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, recently finished the last of three national studies on domestic violence. The first two studies revealed results similar to the latest study. Anyone who would like a copy of the latest study may order it from the University of New Hampshire (ask for document V55). The data tape and documentation of the 1975 and 1985 studies are available from the Interuniversity Consortium For Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan. Original data is also available on CD-ROM from Sociometrics, Inc. in Palo Alto, CA. The average results in the "severe assault" category, are reported below: Wives report they have been severely assaulted by husband 22 per 1000 Wives report they have severely assaulted husband 59 per 1000 Husbands report they have been severely assaulted by wives 32 per 1000 Husbands report they have severely assaulted wives 18 per 1000 Husbands & wives both report wife has been assaulted 20 per 1000 Husbands & wives both report husband has been assaulted 44 per 1000 There are dozens of other studies that reveal similar findings. For instance: * Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in domestic violence. * Women initiate most incidents of domestic violence. * Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse. * Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely that they hit their female children. * Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children. * When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men. * Women commit 50% of spousal murders. * Eighty two percent of all people have their first experience of violence at the hands of their mothers. There is much confusion about whom to believe in the debate about domestic violence. On one side we have women's shelter advocates and feminists who rely on law enforcement statistics. On the other side we have social scientists who rely on scientifically structured studies. Unfortunately, the results of scientific studies do not receive media attention. America's press is seemingly more interested in political correctness than scientific accuracy. Therefore, the public perception, and the perception of many well intentioned domestic violence activists, is radically skewed away from the more balanced perception of social scientists. The typical response of the abuse shelter feminists upon first hearing the results of the scientific studies is to "shoot the messenger". You can almost hear their minds snap closed. On the other hand, abuse shelter personnel who have not accepted the feminist "party line" are grateful to have accurate information upon which to implement rational programs for prevention, intervention, and treatment of abusers and their victims. What is happening at the abuse shelter in your community? We could not find studies which compare the efficacy of scientifically based programs to programs based on feminist politics. However we are willing to wager that scientifically based programs are more effective than programs guided by feminist propaganda. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES We think it is important to note that there have been the same kind of studies done in many countries. There is cross cultural verification that women are more violent than men in domestic settings. When behavior has cross cultural verification it means that it is part of human nature rather than a result of cultural conditioning. Females are most often the perpetrators in domestic violence in all cultures that have been studied so far. That leads many professionals to conclude that there is something biological about violent females in family situations. Researchers are now exploring the role of the "territorial imperative" as a factor in women's violence against men. Women see the home as their territory. Like many other species on the planet, we humans will ignore size difference when we experience conflict on our own territory. So, the scientific results that reveal the violence of American women are not unique to our culture, and do not indicate a special pathology among American women. World wide, women are more violent than men in domestic settings. Below is a summary of the most recent and significant studies we could find about domestic violence in Canada. There were two waves of data collection. The first was done in 1990 the second was finished in 1992. This study was done by "Ms." Reena Sommer, a research associate with the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. We emphasize the "Ms" to call attention to the fact that scientific studies of DV are dominated by female social scientists. Someone mentioned that the figures might reveal a gender bias as if all scientists are male. In this field many of the recognized experts are women. FEMALE VS. MALE PERPETRATED VIOLENCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL RESPONDENTS: % of females % of males Minor Violence threw an object (not at partner) 23.6 15.8 threaten to throw object 14.9 7.3 threw object at partner 16.2 4.6 pushed, or grabbed 19.8 17.2 Severe Violence slapped, punched, kicked 15.8 7.3 used weapon 3.1 0.9 A survey of couples in Calgary, Canada found that the rate of severe husband-to-wife violence was 4.8%, while severe wife-to-husband violence was 10%. Brinkerhoff & Lupri, Canadian Journal of Sociology, 13:4 (1989) THE PROPAGANDA PROBLEM AND THE SCIENTIFIC SOLUTION Abuse shelter advocates and feminists have severely distorted the DV picture and deliberately produce fraudulent statistics and disinformation. Even when they quote well grounded statistics, they misuse the information. Here is an example: One of the favorite statistics quoted by abuse shelter advocates is that a women is the victim of domestic violence every 15 seconds. This statistic is deduced from a well conducted piece of research which was published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, a well respected professional journal for marriage and family therapists. The Abuse Shelter advocates arrived at this figure by using one of the conclusions of the study, i.e.; 1.8 million women suffer an assault from a husband or boyfriend per year. What abuse shelter advocates always ignore is another finding of the same study, i.e.; 2 million men are assaulted by a wife or girl friend per year, which translates as, a man is the victim of domestic violence every 14 seconds. This is typical of the wide spread deception practiced by abuse shelter advocates. America's press establishment is a party to this deception and shares the blame for exacerbating the DV problem by perpetuating a false diagnosis. Women usually initiate domestic violence episodes (they hit first), and women hit more frequently, as well as using weapons three times more often then men. This combination of violent acts means that the efforts of finding solutions to the domestic violence problem need to focus on female perpetrators. We need to recognize that women are violent, and we need nationwide educational programs that emphasize the women's role as perpetrators. Other studies show that men are becoming less violent at the same time that women are becoming more violent. Educating men seems to be working. Educating women to be less violent should now be the main thrust of public education programs. Any domestic violence program which accepts the "male abuser - female victim" paradigm is based on a false premise. These kind of domestic violence programs actually perpetuate the problem of domestic abuse and do not deserve to be supported by private citizens or government agencies. Many government agencies, and legitimate charities, have been funding a feminist political cause, rather than funding rational, solution focused, domestic violence prevention programs. What kind of domestic violence prevention program do you have in your community? Does the domestic violence prevention program in your community devote as much attention to violent females, as it does to violent males? If not, why not? Let us quote from a book on the subject by McNeely, R.L.. and Robinson-Simpson, G (1987) "The Truth about Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue": "Yet, while repeated studies consistently show that men are victims of domestic violence at least as often as are women, both the lay public and many professionals regard a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates as surprising, if not unreliable, the stereotype being that men are aggressive and women are exclusively victims." However, part of the feminist agenda is to make men look as bad as they can. The American press cooperates with this libelous portrayal of men. The feminist view of domestic violence is part of the problem. The media boycott of news about the scientific studies is part of the problem. The scientific view gives us hope for solution. Please do your part to share this very important information with your community. Thank you very much for your attention to this important issue. Sam & Bunny Sewell - e-mail 72752.76@compuserve.com ===================== NEWS CLIPS: LEADING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCHER CLAIMS ABUSE SHELTER ADVOCATES MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE Washington Times Jan 31, 1994 Section A, Joyce Price Murray A. Straus, a sociologist and co-director for the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, blames "women in the battered [women's] shelter movement" for denying that women physically abuse husbands, ex-husbands and boyfriends, or playing down such abuse. "There's this fiction in the shelter movement that in all cases, it's him, not her" who's responsible for domestic assaults, Mr. Straus said in a recent interview. Mr. Straus said at least 30 studies of domestic violence - including some he's conducted - have shown both sexes to be equally culpable. But he said some of the research, such as a recent Canadian national survey, "left out data on women abusing men... because it's politically embarrassing." Women and men "are almost identical" in terms of the frequency of attacks such as slapping, shoving, and kicking, Mr. Straus said. Using information on married couples obtained from 2,994 women in the 1985 National Family Violence Survey, Mr. Straus said he found a rate for assaults by wives of 124 per 1,000 couples, compared with 122 per 1,000 for assaults by husbands. The rate of minor assaults by wives was 78 per 1,000 couples, and the rate of minor assaults by husbands was 72 per 1,000, he said. For the category of severe assaults, he said, the rate was 46 per 1,000 couples for assaults by wives and 50 per 1,000 for assaults by husbands. * "Neither difference is statistically different," Mr. Straus wrote in the journal Issues in Definition and Measurement. "As these rates are based exclusively on information provided by women respondents, the near equality in assault rates cannot be attributed to a gender bias in reporting." Dr. Straus's comments do not reflect the 1995 National Family Violence Survey From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 07:59:08 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709041255.IAA05780@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Jerry Schueler > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Rules > Date: Wednesday, September 03, 1997 2:55 PM > (?) > >The alternative for a seeker following spiritual disciplines is possibly > >getting burnt so many thousands of times by wrong choice that he or she > tires > >of the Maya game and is desperately willing to try anything else. But I'm > not > >so sure about the necessity of that. Addicts will cling to their drugs or > >alcohol even when they are in absolute misery - to the point of death. I've been burnt like a weinie at a barbecue and as for wrong choices, I fear it is just the act of making a choice that gets one burnt. The only true path is within, where the fire and flame never burns, but ignites the flame of the heart. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:07:02 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Violent Women? Message-ID: <199709041303.JAA06994@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Violent Women? > Date: Thursday, September 04, 1997 2:30 AM > > The general response from people on this list to claims of feminism's > having gone to extremes is that such claims are false, insignificant, > and/or sexist. Somehow, the rest of theos-l has veered and motored in a different direction in terms of discussion. At least, it appears that way to me. If you have found a newsgroup that truly tickles your ----- with it's male/female discussions, then I say: GO FOR IT! Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any interest here. Last big topic here was the number 7 (BINGO!). Don't get me wrong, Tom, you still have the freedom, as we all do to talk about anything we want. I'd just thought I'd point out that you might be talking to yourself. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 97 19:14:39 UT From: "JOSEPH PRICE" Subject: DIvine Right Message-ID: Nobody talks about the divine right of royalty anymore. It was a more unified world for the ancients. The Rishis and pharohs could claim divine ancesors, connection with the gods or God. So many are asking why Princess Diana's death means so much to so many, especially outside the UK. I think she was a rare echo of the Divine Feminine, that the feminine side of royalty is supposed to represent. She was emotional, sensitive and had her flaws, but she was always ready to prune her branches and bloom again and get back to charity work or playing with the kids, her own and those with AIDS. She was a representative of the Shekinah, to me. The feminine image of god, on flawed clay, our seventh and lowest globe, Malkuth and Mylba. Now it is Di to dust as it will be for us all. I cried and cried. Something special is gone that is larger than life and death! Di you were the Lady divine. Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 15:37:42 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Divine Right Message-ID: <199709042137.PAA14651@mailmx.micron.net> Keith wrote: >Now it is Di to dust as it will be for us >all. I cried and cried. Something special is gone that is larger than life >and death! Di you were the Lady divine. Imagining a world without Princess Diana seems an almost impossible task. And the work of integrating this wretched truth takes a particular form, as often throughout the day, I feel I've forgotten or neglected to do something. Maybe Saturday night, the viewing of her funeral will open what is trying to stay shut. I wonder what it means, or what happens, to someone who has died and was so loved by the world. Was Princess Diana "planned?" Will all the love and grief expressed over her death alter her "journey?" And I wonder if the opening of so many hearts has altered our future - the world, for however short a period of time, seems united. . .have we taken another "step". . .or is this really, in the scheme of things, nothing to get worked up about. . .? I know, right now, one thing for sure. . .I deeply miss someone I've never met, and it hurts. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:46:42 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709042346.QAA29548@palrel1.hp.com> "A. Safron" wrote: > I've been burnt like a weinie at a barbecue and as for wrong choices, > I fear it is just the act of making a choice that gets one burnt. Please know, Ann, that the following are my sincere thoughts and come side-by-side with sympathy for your "burns". I'm not trying to trivialize any heavy circumstances you have endured, speak from a soap box, or be a Pollyanna. To say that we are condemned to be burned by the mere act of making any choice is a little too gloomy and fatalistic for me. For one thing, I know of many counter examples; for another, there has to be something more than perpetual burning in store for us. > The only true path is within, where the fire and flame never burns, but > ignites the flame of the heart. The path within is what animates the outer life, but is the outer life just a meaningless appendage? It is to build a structure for the inner life. The way from fire to light is through the fire. Titus From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 01:48:59 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: In message <199709042346.QAA29548@palrel1.hp.com>, Titus Roth writes >The path within is what animates the outer life, but is the outer life just a >meaningless appendage? No. > It is to build a structure for the inner life. The way >from fire to light is through the fire. Define: "Inner life" "Fire" "Light" .. in context, and I might get some idea of what you are trying to say. With respect, Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 22:21:11 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Violent Women? Message-ID: <34243057.12069603@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> A. Safron wrote: >Don't get me wrong, Tom, you still have the freedom, as we all do >to talk about anything we want. I'd just thought I'd point out that you >might be talking to yourself. It's probably just lack of interest, then, that no one who so eagerly accuses men of sexism would want to discuss reports such as these. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:11:39 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Rules Message-ID: Jerry Schueler wrote: "HPB says that golden chains (which are what rules are) will bind as surely as iron chains". I am sorry, I don't have any reference but would like to tell you how I understand this. The golden chains really like golden chains. In the middle of the noetical dimension the duality stops Totally outside of this noetical dimensions there are two more dimensions and there are the golden chains coming from. The roules of God you could say. The iron chains come from the middle of the noetical dimension downwards and I see them as kind of worms. They mean everything that binds you to the duality, including Maya. They actually make the Maya. Both forms of chains surely bind - the golden ones to love, peace and freedom, the iron ones are heavy boundaries. I hope, I could have helped a little. Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:09:12 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Di. Message-ID: I can really only say a few short things regarding Di and the possible reasons, if it was "planned", for her death. This occurance has done two major things, I think. First, it has shown us different aspects of the media, and how much impact it has on our lives. A nation, particularly in America, doesn't really know anything other than what they are told by their investigative reporters. Anything beyond that usually needs to be experianced first-hand, particularly when it comes to people. The recent investigations conducted by world-wide media started out as looking for someone else to blame. It was so obvious that they were doing so by concentrating on the drunk driver, that they received many accusations. Their reaction was to say, more or less, "Well, it was kind of our fault." I say "kind of" because they are holding to the fact that the photographers were not really the media.... Please excuse my language, but that is bullshit. The photographers got paid, handsomely, for doing what they did, and the payment didn't come from other photographers, it came from the media in general. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, and I'm sure many will probably think I am over-reacting or not looking at both sides of the coin, but as more and more of this case unfolds, I get more and more angry. I very rarely get angry. Anyhow, I think it has opened many peoples eyes, even wider, to the fact that the media does not tell the whole truth. They leave little bits and pieces out so that it either 1) benefits them, or 2) benefits governments and/or politicians. In this light, I think one of Tom's points is very appropriate with his rebuttal on feminist principle and reasoning. The media hides information. Of course they do. Govenment special interest groups get loads of money, I'm sure, for women's rights. If the media were to start telling the truth, (if Tom's information is accurate, which may not be, but I'll explain that in another post), all of those special interest groups would get nothing, because no politician in his right mind would stand for it. ..Ok, calming down now... The second most important "reason", IMHO, is that it has given people the oppurtunity to see that one person truly can influence the world in a good way. Of course Di had her problems, but that made her more real. If she had been perfect, people would say, "I could never be like her." Because she was a real person, which we were able to see (thanks to the media I suppose), we can look at ourselves and say, "Yeah, we can do something good with our lives." Her death made everyone pay attention to her deeds, which is probably what the media should have been doing all along, instead of trying to find out who her next boyfriend was going to be. Ok, I'm done rambling. --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 04:31:17 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: Violent Women? Message-ID: Sorry to disappoint you, Ann, but I need to say a few words regarding Tom's statistics. Please note that this is only hypothetical, and is not necessarily what I truly believe. Good statistics regarding people's behavior are really hard to come by. The reason why is that in order to do so, you have to watch a thousand people or more 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Otherwise, you are only relying on honesty. When it comes to abuse, how many people do you think are going to be honest about it? If you called up a home and asked the husband, "Do you beat your wife?", what do you think he'll say? "Oh yes, every night." I doubt it. If you were to ask the wife, "Does your husband beat you?", once again, I doubt that she would say "Yes." If more women and men did that, there wouldn't be any spousal abuse. Now suppose we ask the wife, "Have you ever slapped or hit your husband?" Hmmm...she'd probably say yes. Why? Because such an act is a lot less threatening. Or seems to be. I'm not trying to play it down, I believe that both acts of violence are wrong. I'm only saying this with regards to your statistics. It is more socially accepted that a woman slaps a man than the other way around. Therefore, a woman is more likely to confess to such an act than a man would be. Without looking at situations on a case by case basis, which point of view do you think is more life threatening. The man's when his wife slaps him, or the woman's when her husband slaps her. I don't know a whole lot about weight and strength statistics, but I think I can generally say that the average man weighs more and packs more punch than his wife. There are quite a few factors which would play into the honesty part of your statistics. For me to be able to take these staticstics as fact, I need to know a few things. In how many of these households did the man bring more money into the home than the woman, which is one of the main reasons why most women do not turn in their abusive husbands. In how many households was the man stronger than the woman? With regards to the child abuse, who spent more time with the children? The man or the woman? There are a few others, but I think these are probably most important. --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 19:10:06 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709051321.JAA02885@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Titus Roth > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Rules > Date: Thursday, September 04, 1997 6:46 PM > > "A. Safron" wrote: > > > I've been burnt like a weinie at a barbecue and as for wrong choices, > > I fear it is just the act of making a choice that gets one burnt. > > Please know, Ann, that the following are my sincere thoughts and come > side-by-side with sympathy for your "burns". I'm not trying to trivialize any > heavy circumstances you have endured, speak from a soap box, or be a > Pollyanna. > > To say that we are condemned to be burned by the mere act of making any choice > is a little too gloomy and fatalistic for me. How old are you? I'm 48 and the older I get the more bitter endings I endure by authority figures whose agenda was more important than mine. They make promises they can't keep and keep you in a servile position, especially if you're a woman. I still stand by my position that the only supportive Love and Light is within. The Soul will never abandon you till death, because it is the one that created you to act in the game of life. All other characters you meet on the game board are there to play out their script, even if means your burning. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:29:36 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Violent Women? Message-ID: <199709051332.JAA04723@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Violent Women? > Date: Thursday, September 04, 1997 11:19 PM > > A. Safron wrote: > > >Don't get me wrong, Tom, you still have the freedom, as we all do > >to talk about anything we want. I'd just thought I'd point out that you > >might be talking to yourself. > > It's probably just lack of interest, then, that no one who so eagerly > accuses men of sexism would want to discuss reports such as these. Perhaps this forum is concerned with other things at the moment. But it sounds like a interested newsgroup would surely welcome your views. I contribute to several soap opera groups. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 08:36:22 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Violent Women? Message-ID: <199709051332.JAA04743@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Violent Women? > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 7:27 AM > > Sorry to disappoint you, Ann, but I need to say a few words regarding > Tom's statistics. > Please, by all means, feel free to respond to Tom. A. Safron BTW, has anyone here seen the film "Seven Years in Tibet" with Brad Pitt? I saw a trailer for it when I rented the Larry Flynt video and it looked fabulous. They told me at the store that it's not in video yet. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 97 9:41:23 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Book of Enlightened Masters Message-ID: <199709051341.JAA12085@leo.vsla.edu> Hey Gang, We just got in a new book that should interest theos-l readers. The author, Andrew Rawlinson, is a retired university professor in England who attended at least one Theosophical History conference in the 1980s. I went with him and Leslie Price to examine the Mahatma letters in the British Museum one afternoon. Now he has produced an amazing cornucopia of information, which his subtitle describes as "Western Teachers in Eastern Traditions." Almost 500 pages of the book is an alphabetical listing of Westerners who became teachers in Eastern spiritual lineages and some of their Eastern initiators. HPB is listed but almost all of the many subjects of the book are more recent. The first 150 pages, which I haven't examined as thoroughly yet, is an introduction to spiritual teachers in various traditions followed by an explanation of how Westerners entered those lineages and a discussion of the issues raised by this change. It's a bit pricey, $29.95 for a large paperback, but if you can't afford it try to find it at a library. This is a wonderful survey of the results of the East/West opening inaugurated by HPB and her teachers, and any Theosophist or admirer of HPB should enjoy it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:13:45 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Rules - corrected version Message-ID: Jerry Schueler wrote: "HPB says that golden chains (which are what rules are) will bind as surely as iron chains". Corrected version - pls ignore the old one --------------------------------------------------------- I am sorry, I don't have any reference but would like to tell you how I understand this. The golden chains really look like golden chains. In the middle of the noetical dimension the duality stops. Totally outside of this noetical dimensions there are two more dimensions and there are the golden chains coming from. The roules of God you could say. The iron chains come from the middle of the noetical dimension downwards and I see them as kind of worms. They mean everything that binds you to the duality, including Maya. They actually make the Maya. It means, that you will find the Maya inside you and this is why you have to go through the Kama Loka. Both forms of chains surely bind - the golden ones to love, peace and freedom, the iron ones are heavy boundaries. Boundaries made out of hatred, fear, guilt, desires ... I hope, I could have helped a little. Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:56:26 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Violent Women? Message-ID: <341225fe.1460071@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jaqi wrote: >Without looking at situations on a case by case basis, which point of view >do you think is more life threatening. The man's when his wife slaps him, >or the woman's when her husband slaps her. I don't know a whole lot about >weight and strength statistics, but I think I can generally say that the >average man weighs more and packs more punch than his wife. This is partly what kept that newsgroup discussion going for so much longer than it should have gone. The men were going to the same kind of extreme, in not acknowledging that men do more damage when they hit women than women do when they hit men, as feminists so often do in ignoring reasons why men and women should have unequal outcomes. >In how many households was the man stronger than the woman? Probably more than 90% of them. >With regards to the child abuse, who spent more time with the children? >The man or the woman? That's the first thing I thought of when I read the statistics about that. A man can be far more prone to violence than his wife is, but the wife may still be violent to their children more often than he is just by spending more time with them, which is generally the case. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:56:31 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Di. Message-ID: <341328e5.2203371@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Jaqi wrote: >I can really only say a few short things regarding Di and the possible >reasons, if it was "planned", for her death. > >This occurance has done two major things, I think. First, it has shown us >different aspects of the media, and how much impact it has on our lives. Another thing it has shown is the tendency to irrationally find scapegoats when there is a tragedy. To imply that the photographers were anywhere near as responsible as the driver was is insane. It is similar to the Martin Pang case. On January 5, 1995, there was an arson fire in Seattle, in which 4 firefighters died. Mr. Pang was not only accused of lighting the fire, but, except for fleeing to Brazil and avoiding it through a legal technicality, would have been charged with the murder of the firefighters as well! What did he do that other arsonists didn't do who lit fires in which no firefighters died? Apparently, this policy of charging those who commit felonies with murder if anyone dies while they are committing their felonies has been around for centuries. Here is a clear case in which emphasizing intention and probability should supercede tradition. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:34:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Di. Message-ID: <970905133134_119527023@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-05 08:11:12 EDT, you write: >Her death made everyone pay attention to her deeds Actually, it has our vcrs working overtime as we frantically avoid the insipid, inane and totally boring coverage of this event of monumental unimportance. Oh, and I didn't do it. I was at a party last saturday night. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:41:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <970905134121_145570674@emout01.mail.aol.com> Rules serve only to create control mechanisms for people. Those who like to promulgate them do so only because of the pleasure they get out of controlling other people, no matter what the psuedo-spiritual garbage they may try to cloak them in. The only way to deal with such people is to break their rules and flaunt that breaking in their presence. They sputter so nicely and there are few things more fun that watching the collective impotence of a roomful of self-righteous baboons faced with the reality that they are being ignored. And as far as spiritual teachers go, they're all liars and frauds anyway, so who cares what they think? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 10:57:35 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709051757.KAA07244@palrel1.hp.com> I wrote: >> To say that we are condemned to be burned by the mere act of making any >> choice is a little too gloomy and fatalistic for me. "A. Safron" wrote: > How old are you? I'm 48 and the older I get the more bitter endings I > endure by authority figures whose agenda was more important than mine. They > make promises they can't keep and keep you in a servile position, especially > if you're a woman. I'm 43. > I still stand by my position that the only supportive Love and Light is > within. The Soul will never abandon you till death, because it is the one > that created you to act in the game of life. All other characters you meet > on the game board are there to play out their script, even if means your > burning. OK. You win. Still theosophical friends? Titus From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 18:25:21 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <341f4c39.11247321@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Chuck wrote: >Rules serve only to create control mechanisms for people. Those who like >to promulgate them do so only because of the pleasure they get out of >controlling other people, no matter what the psuedo-spiritual garbage they >may try to cloak them in. The only way to deal with such people is to break >their rules and flaunt that breaking in their presence. There is a time to oppose authority, but this is only part of the story. Rules, at a certain point in one's growth, are better than the freedom of spontaneity. If I was entirely free to brush my teeth, and I did so only spontaneously and on the spur of the moment, I would irregularly brush my teeth. With a fixed rule, I am more likely to brush them regularly. In learning a skill, it is generally better to follow the instructor's rules than to do it one's own way. Rules are needed for order. There are many examples of its being better that people work together in a coordinated way, in which situations rules are necessary in order to avoid chaos. Neither anarchy nor tyranny are ideals, but a certain mixture of both is. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:40:46 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Two Great Ladies Message-ID: <199709051836.OAA15588@cliff.concentric.net> I've just heard that Mother Theresa has died at the age of 87, so soon after the death of Lady Diana. Two great ladies, one young and one old, has passed on, leaving us their examples of charity and compassion. In the Light, A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:06:48 -0700 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19970905150648.0082b9b0@imagiware.com> Chuck: You mention that ... >Rules serve only to create control mechanisms for people. Those who like to >promulgate them do so only because of the pleasure they get out of >controlling other people, no matter what the psuedo-spiritual garbage they >may try to cloak them in. The only way to deal with such people is to break >their rules and flaunt that breaking in their presence. > >They sputter so nicely and there are few things more fun that watching the >collective impotence of a roomful of self-righteous baboons faced with the >reality that they are being ignored. > >And as far as spiritual teachers go, they're all liars and frauds anyway, so >who cares what they think? This is a one-sided slant on things for intended dramatic effect, not a balanced statement. Take the opposite slant: ---- Rules serve only to optimize the greatest good for all people. Those who like to oppose them do so only because of the pleasure they get out of rebelling against the common good, no matter what the psuedo-liberation garbage they may try to cloak themselves in. The only way to deal with such people is to shackle them and flaunt their captivity in their presence. They scream no nicely and there are few things more fun than watching the collective impotence of a cell full of self-seeking con artists faced with the reality that they are being restrained. And as far as liberators go, they're all liars and frauds anyway, so who cares what they think? ---- Is either slant true? Not exactly. They're both half-truths. There are *some* rules I hope you follow whenever I'm in Chicago, like driving on the correct side of the road and stopping for red lights. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 97 15:35:43 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Male/female violence Message-ID: <199709051935.PAA22868@leo.vsla.edu> I was on very close terms for four years with the researcher/ librarian at the National Victim Center, an advocacy group for victims of violent crime. Part of his job was compiling statistics from all reliable sources on the subject. We had several conversations about the frequency of female on male violence being the same as vice versa, and how violently angry certain feminists got whenever this was brought up. But he also said that men do far more damage when they do physical harm, and kill their partners far more often than women; so this part of Tom's summary leaves me scratching my head. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 16:19:18 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 1225 Message-ID: <34106946.2C57@globalserve.net> > To: Chuck > Subject: Re: Di. > Actually, it has our vcrs working overtime as we frantically avoid the > insipid, inane and totally boring coverage of this event of monumental > unimportance. Oh, and I didn't do it. I was at a party last saturday night. > Will you say the same about the coverage of Mother Teresa, Chuck? Are these happenings linked? How many more do we have to lose until the message gets through? Just what were you manifesting at that party then? BTW, I was really pleased with your response to my Solomon challenge. You got me for about 2 minutes before I could think of a retort and now I've forgotten it as it was not at all inspirational or worthy of your parry. Keep on Chucking. Annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 17:23:41 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Violent Women Message-ID: <3410785D.5769@globalserve.net> Tom, I believe you wrote: > It's probably just lack of interest, then, that no one who so eagerly > accuses men of sexism would want to discuss reports such as these. I promised myself I would not comment and was pleased that Ann and Jacqi did it for me admirably, but the subject "got to me"..... Firstly, anyone who has calculated, analyzed, synthesized and BS'd their managers with stats knows that one can make stats tell any story one wants. Although this is a basic instinct in mammals it required proof for us dumber line in the form of every segment of industry that one year uses stats to promote a product, service or concept and later uses relatively identical stats to disprove the former and introduce an opposite. If you don't believe me, try designing, implementing and analyzing a questionnaire with "suggestive opposite" statements in it and no room for "additional comments". I'll bet you'll conclude that your respondents don't know what they have experienced, mean or think and futhermore that you can present the results to support anything! Secondly, it's hard not to lose one's cool as a female and allow one's baser instincts to bubble up to the mouth or hand when some males (and some total societies) keep pushing us to the limit of this gender/power/domination thing, when all we want is to get past/round/above it and be part of a whole genderless enlightened race. I admire those who have the courage and strength to stay in the debate, however, I am hiding out in shame for all those times that I have slayed a man with my eyes, body, tongue, intelligence and witchery. It's too darn easy to do and accomplishes nothing - much like those stats. Most of us (women) have experienced some kind of power/sexism "abuse" and until we start to reconnect to the enlightenment, we turn and fight with blasts of energy that we don't even know we have and hence escalate the "battle". Ergo, most of us (women) have given some power/sexism "abuse". Sooner or later, depending on what lifetime we're on, we realize that we are manifesting these situations and back off, but on the days we are tired or jealous or uninspired, we lash out at what we "feel" constantly as this dictatorial implicit power/domination thing, thinking, "why is it always I who have to give/smooth/obey/perform/nurture?" I've waited a long time for "the masculinity" to catch up again on the learning curve and join the "feminity" and have no desire to put that in jeapordy again. However....... I am Eagle ......... watch me soar I am Warrior ......... hear me roar I am Mother ....... join with me I am You .......... let me BE And "hell" really does have no fury like a woman's scorn (or a woman spurned, or a woman ignored, or a woman threatened, or a woman "you name it" if it's opposite to Love".) Annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 97 21:56:26 UT From: "JOSEPH PRICE" Subject: Di and Mother T Message-ID: Well we now have two icons gone. Two holes in the pantheon. There will be replacements from generation X, but if there music is a preview, I am afraid I will be as disdainful as QEII. No doubt, Mother Teresa, is closer to being the IDEAL of the early theosophists, but I never EVER hearing of HPB taking to the slums of India to help the poor, so that let's us off the hook, doesn't it?? HPB was a very skillful manipulator of the media of the time with her association with AP Sinnett and all those letters from the "masters", strangely in HPB's hand usually, flying about the rooms and closets (one had to duck I susupect!) Mother T and Di really can't be compared, except as representative of successful women who tried to help humanity. Mother T was more direct and got her hands dirty, but I really think Di's longterm impact will be longer in memorials for AIDS childrena and other charities. The poor will always be with us, but you don't get a go-getter like Di everyday. Di wasn't a modern VENUS, a sex goddess, like Marilyn Monroe. But she was a complete women - beautiful, gracious, nuturing, fertile and able to hold her own against men and monarchs. The Wiccans can't get that out in earth mothers, I bet. I think Mother T was more holy, more spiritual, but Di was more complete. She would have made a good archetype in a Jungian study of the anima alive in the World. Now she is alive in the World Soul. I think they are good icons for the old and stodgy puritan spiriuality and the new effervesing and effervesent Aquarian (media to the tits!) spirituality. Can you say theos-l and Brand X? Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 97 22:22:38 UT From: "JOSEPH PRICE" Subject: Media Tarot Message-ID: Thinking about Di and Mother Teresa and the media, I realized that we have trully entered the Aquarian Church of the Media World Mind, a veritable tableaux of tarot images, icons and archetypes. Di was Isis, Strength and the Sun (as feminine representations of those cards). Mother Teresa was (the Hermit, and yes! the Heirophant, and the hanged women). OJ Simpson was our devil for a while. President Clinton is the King and the Fool and that is not a put down, but is exactly why he can screw all the girls and the American public and get away with it! Hillary is the Moon, believe me! Of course movie stars are also iconographic, Marilyn will always be the Queen, for our generation, then Madona, and now Alanis Morrisette (?)-kd lang (????) I better stop. I think you get the idea. We used to have open eyed meditaions into the night fires where the clans gathered to tell stories of ancient races of god-like men of great spiritual power. Now we have cable TV! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 97 15:48:30 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: HPB and Mormons Message-ID: <199709052247.PAA05534@scv2.apple.com> >From a historical point of view, it would be interesting to find out if >there was anything anywhere which gives us a clue to why HPB took the >trouble to travel to Salt Lake City. I wonder whether we will ever find out >anything at all. There might be something in personal notebooks; HPB was a spotty but active diarist during this period, as revealed by the passages she showed to the Countess Wachtmeister. These would be in the Adyar Archives if anywhere but I believe those are only open to those who are doctrinally in good odor with the management (which would let me out as I prefer to try to express the truth as I see it.) I agree with you that this is an interesting question and I wish there were more research trying to reconstruct HPB's mysterious early travels. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 97 15:48:34 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <199709052247.PAA06308@scv2.apple.com> >The general response from people on this list to claims of feminism's >having gone to extremes is that such claims are false, insignificant, >and/or sexist. Tom, no one is saying that except you. The issue where you are concerned is not that you think feminism like other reform movements has sometimes been overzealous, but that you seem basically at odds with the aims of the movement, of which Theosophy is an important historical part, with feminism written into its primary aims. You seem hell-bent for leather to make it appear from the emotional tone of your writing that you don't like women, don't have any sympathy for the oppression of women, and think women and men who are sympathetic to women's sociopolitical position are members of some ravening, world-destroying movement . Your tone comes across as a barely controlled venting of furious anger. >The belief in its insignificance is based on the idea >that male violence towards women is far more of a problem than >anything feminism has caused. I can't quite parse this sentence, but in any case, does it help you to know that I agree that some damaging stereotypes about males as abusers and women as victims have become entrenched in Western culture? These are not even feminist stereotypes; they are mass media stereotypes; the internal discourse in feminism, especially on the tangent with gay and lesbian studies, is much better than the popular press and much better than yours. These mistaken ideas need to be explored and defused, but the way to do this is not to come across as a vicious enemy of the liberation of women, as you do. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 18:18:47 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: HPB and Mormons Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970905231847.010f4f4c@mail.eden.com> At 06:52 PM 9/5/97 -0400, Tim Maroney wrote: >>From a historical point of view, it would be interesting to find out if >>there was anything anywhere which gives us a clue to why HPB took the >>trouble to travel to Salt Lake City. I wonder whether we will ever find out >>anything at all. > >There might be something in personal notebooks; HPB was a spotty but >active diarist during this period, as revealed by the passages she showed >to the Countess Wachtmeister. These would be in the Adyar Archives if >anywhere but I believe those are only open to those who are doctrinally >in good odor with the management (which would let me out as I prefer to >try to express the truth as I see it.) I agree with you that this is an >interesting question and I wish there were more research trying to >reconstruct HPB's mysterious early travels. > >-- >Tim Maroney I agree. It is my feeling that the archives may be accessible in HPB's notes and I don't think it is going to be that difficult for someone who is objective as well as acceptable. Let us hope we see some work done in this area. ..doss/mkr > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 18:25:59 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970905232559.011294e4@mail.eden.com> At 03:06 PM 9/5/97 -0400, Eldon B Tucker wrote: >Chuck: > >You mention that ... > >>Rules serve only to create control mechanisms for people. Those who like to >>promulgate them do so only because of the pleasure they get out of >>controlling other people, no matter what the psuedo-spiritual garbage they >>may try to cloak them in. The only way to deal with such people is to break >>their rules and flaunt that breaking in their presence. >> >>They sputter so nicely and there are few things more fun that watching the >>collective impotence of a roomful of self-righteous baboons faced with the >>reality that they are being ignored. >> >>And as far as spiritual teachers go, they're all liars and frauds anyway, so >>who cares what they think? > >This is a one-sided slant on things for intended dramatic effect, not a >balanced statement. Take the opposite slant: > >---- > >Rules serve only to optimize the greatest good for all people. Those who like >to oppose them do so only because of the pleasure they get out of rebelling >against the common good, no matter what the psuedo-liberation garbage they >may try to cloak themselves in. The only way to deal with such people is to >shackle them and flaunt their captivity in their presence. > >They scream no nicely and there are few things more fun than watching the >collective impotence of a cell full of self-seeking con artists faced with >the reality that they are being restrained. > >And as far as liberators go, they're all liars and frauds anyway, so who >cares what they think? > >---- > >Is either slant true? Not exactly. They're both half-truths. There are >*some* rules I hope you follow whenever I'm in Chicago, like driving >on the correct side of the road and stopping for red lights. > >-- Eldon Let me add my 15 cents worth. Rules are needed for an efficient and orderly progress of physical activities. Such as one way traffic, traffic signals, etc. etc. Some of these are also necessary to protect the physical security and safety of everyone. When you go to non physical matters, I don't know what are the rules and who sets them? Gurus, religious leaders, sacred books, tradition, or whatever. Any ideas? ...doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 97 16:26:29 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Black Holes Message-ID: <199709052325.QAA24260@scv4.apple.com> >Dennis, I enjoyed your comments on Black Holes. But I >can't agree with everything (so what else is new? :-) ) > >A Black Hole takes in matter and gives off radiation and >heat (at least according to Steven Hawking--personally >I don't follow all the math). The Hawking black-hole radiation process is actually not all that complicated as explained in Scentific American and physics popularizers, but it involves some unusual entities. In empty space with no energy there is a constant process of virtual particle/anti-particle pair formation, including pairs where one virtual particle has a positive energy and the other negative. Due to the nature of the event horizon, sometimes it happens that a negative particle that would otherwise be reabsorbed with its counterpart into nothingness falls in the hole instead, but its companion does not, with the result that the positive particle wanders off as radiation. I don't know why this isn't a zero-sum process but in any case it is now generally agreed by physicists that black holes radiate, and that they radiate faster the smaller they are. A big black hole like the one at the center of our galaxy will last for trillions of years, but ultimately they will all peter out into radiation, leaving the universe in a classical heat-death state, uniform and cold everywhere, with no lumps like black holes, stars, planets, rocks, clouds or people. >This is my definition of a device >that converts matter to energy (alias spirit). If they exist, >then their polar counterparts--White Holes-- must also >exist. White Holes would give off matter and take in radiation >and heat, just the opposite of Black Holes. If we allow >that this is so, then I can't help but see a mighty large >connection between White Holes and HPB's laya >centers. Let's not forget the clear geological connection to Old Faithful, proving that there must exist in the world geysers and anti-geysers chained together and spewing not only water but that pure cosmic substance that is the stuff of the spiritual world. Seriously, I've never understood why this kind of completely unfounded scientific speculation would have any appeal outside science fiction. Because such statements deal with scientific matters but lack any empirical grounding, they are almost certain to be wrong. Can you explain the appeal In expressing factual claims of this kind? -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 16:59:21 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709052359.QAA15362@palrel1.hp.com> ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > Rules are needed for an efficient and orderly progress of physical > activities. Such as one way traffic, traffic signals, etc. etc. Some of > these are also necessary to protect the physical security and safety of > everyone. > When you go to non physical matters, I don't know what are the rules and who > sets them? Gurus, religious leaders, sacred books, tradition, or whatever. > Any ideas? Rules are inherent in Nature and are an aspect of Law. They may be subtle, but they are there. "The way that can be told is not the eternal way." Lao Tsu God Himself/Herself follows rules. He/She also permits us to break them (and suffer the consequences), so we should also respect others rights to break them and suffer the consequences unless it hurts other people. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 19:33:03 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970906003303.011f685c@mail.eden.com> At 07:59 PM 9/5/97 -0400, Titus Roth wrote: >ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > >> Rules are needed for an efficient and orderly progress of physical >> activities. Such as one way traffic, traffic signals, etc. etc. Some of >> these are also necessary to protect the physical security and safety of >> everyone. > >> When you go to non physical matters, I don't know what are the rules and who >> sets them? Gurus, religious leaders, sacred books, tradition, or whatever. > >> Any ideas? > >Rules are inherent in Nature and are an aspect of Law. They may be subtle, >but they are there. > >"The way that can be told is not the eternal way." Lao Tsu > >God Himself/Herself follows rules. He/She also permits us to break them (and >suffer the consequences), so we should also respect others rights to break >them and suffer the consequences unless it hurts other people. Agreed. Each faces the consequence of their actions. So long as such breaking does not cause any public harm or harm to any individual (living being), no one can have any objection to anyone's actions. ....doss/mkr PS: I just got a spam for selling T-Shirts which say: DRINK + DRIVE = DI Someone sees a business angle in any situation! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 13:45:00 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709060038.UAA07235@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Titus Roth > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Rules > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 12:58 PM > > I'm 43. I reached the peak of my incarnation at the age of 42. > > > I still stand by my position that the only supportive Love and Light is > > within. The Soul will never abandon you till death, because it is the one > > that created you to act in the game of life. All other characters you meet > > on the game board are there to play out their script, even if means your > > burning. > > OK. You win. Still theosophical friends? Were we ever not? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:47:36 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <199709060054.UAA11262@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Tim Maroney > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 5:53 PM > > >The belief in its insignificance is based on the idea > >that male violence towards women is far more of a problem than > >anything feminism has caused. > This is so glaringly obvious, that it looks like the Hollywood sign on the famous hill. Who beat you up, Tom? Physically and/or emotionally. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 19:52:29 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Di and Mother T Message-ID: <199709060054.UAA11270@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: JOSEPH PRICE > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Di and Mother T > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 5:04 PM > > Well we now have two icons gone. Two holes in the pantheon. There will be > replacements from generation X, but if there music is a preview, I am afraid I > will be as disdainful as QEII. > We all play our part in the drama. Put on our masks, our makeup, our costumes and affect appropriate accents. It's hard to say one did better than the other when they were just doing what they were supposed to do. Namaste and have a good day! A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 01:44:18 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Early HPB Message-ID: In message <2.2.32.19970905231847.010f4f4c@mail.eden.com>, ramadoss@eden.com writes >I wish there were more research trying to >>reconstruct HPB's mysterious early travels. >> >>-- >>Tim Maroney > >I agree. > >It is my feeling that the archives may be accessible in HPB's notes and I >don't think it is going to be that difficult for someone who is objective as >well as acceptable. Let us hope we see some work done in this area. R.A.Gilbert has done some work in this area. I will try and find something, or get something from him. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 01:42:19 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <3439b394.37706396@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Tim wrote: >>The general response from people on this list to claims of feminism's >>having gone to extremes is that such claims are false, insignificant, >>and/or sexist. >Tom, no one is saying that except you. You must have either not read or forgot about the posts in which my claims of injustice towards men was responded to by describing it as "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel." And if you don't believe that my claims have been called sexist, then you are in no position to make such a positive assertion about who has said what. >The issue where you are concerned >is not that you think feminism like other reform movements has sometimes >been overzealous, but that you seem basically at odds with the aims of >the movement, of which Theosophy is an important historical part, with >feminism written into its primary aims. You have quite an imagination. Might you have some quotes from me to support this? >You seem hell-bent for leather to >make it appear from the emotional tone of your writing that you don't >like women, don't have any sympathy for the oppression of women, and >think women and men who are sympathetic to women's sociopolitical >position are members of some ravening, world-destroying movement . Your >tone comes across as a barely controlled venting of furious anger. Could you give an example of that? I'm angry at recklessly being labelled as "sexist" when there's no truth to it, but it hardly amounts to the grandeur that you have described. >These mistaken ideas need to be explored and defused, but the >way to do this is not to come across as a vicious enemy of the liberation >of women, as you do. Could you give an example of my "vicious" enmity towards the liberation of women? Or did it just sound good, so you wrote it? How you got your entire perception of what I have written is a total mystery to me. Could you just be taking the word of biased feminists? It is quite an interesting pattern - those who say the same thing you do have the same trouble coming up with any examples that you do and the same difficulty going into detail in rationally explaining the reasons for what they say as you do. For every post of mine that you believe shows my vicious enmity towards the liberation of women, I'll show you 10 that shows my admiration for them. But I'm not about to let biased, prejudiced people like you make your reckless (and usually hypocritical) accusations without being challenged. I wonder how much people like you hurt the cause of women that you say you support by deflecting energy which could have gone into bettering everyone into people's defending themselves against false accusations? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 02:47:19 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <3442c397.41763377@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> A. Safron wrote: >> >The belief in its insignificance is based on the idea >> >that male violence towards women is far more of a problem than >> >anything feminism has caused. >This is so glaringly obvious, that it looks like the Hollywood >sign on the famous hill. Even though my asking will probably do nothing but add to the perception of me as "a vicious enemy of the liberation of women," even though, depending on what liberation is supposed to be from, most of them don't even want to be liberated, on what do you base that? And I hope you're not implying that you believe that men are physically stronger than women are. You don't want to be as sexist as I am, do you? >Who beat you up, Tom? Physically and/or emotionally. I've neither been beaten up nor have I had my way paid for me due to my sexual attractiveness. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 02:47:26 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <3440bd30.40124305@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Tim wrote: >These mistaken ideas need to be explored and defused, but the >way to do this is not to come across as a vicious enemy of the liberation >of women, as you do. This is analogous to your being interested in race issues, subscribing to a discussion list, saying that black people are more susceptible to having sickle-cell anemia than are white people, and having 90% of those on the discussion list call you a racist, without ever considering the possibility that what you said might be true, and then, when you defended yourself, trying to find out what they meant by the word "racist," the best answer you got is when someone chided you for coming across as a vicious enemy of the liberation of black people. I predict you will experience something like that soon, since it is now your karma. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 01:25:09 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Early HPB Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970906062509.011e6c34@mail.eden.com> At 09:07 PM 9/5/97 -0400, you wrote: >In message <2.2.32.19970905231847.010f4f4c@mail.eden.com>, >ramadoss@eden.com writes >>I wish there were more research trying to >>>reconstruct HPB's mysterious early travels. >>> >>>-- >>>Tim Maroney >> >>I agree. >> >>It is my feeling that the archives may be accessible in HPB's notes and I >>don't think it is going to be that difficult for someone who is objective as >>well as acceptable. Let us hope we see some work done in this area. > >R.A.Gilbert has done some work in this area. I will try and find >something, or get something from him. > >Alan > Will look forward to it. ..........doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 03:53:49 -0700 From: ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net Subject: White Holes, and Theosophists Message-ID: <199709061053.DAA03314@mailtod-1.alma.webtv.net> Greetings. A recent post discusses black holes and their presumable counterparts, white holes. I am wondering if white holes were tentatively assumed to be stars, what would be the outcome of *bending* science and or Theosophy, in the sense that was presented in the post, to explain it or to establish the details thereof? Not that such bodies will seem paticularly divine to the photophobic or sunstricken, perhaps, but there may be something of an appreciably spirtual nature, for want of a less cumbersome and contradictory sounding phrase, in the Solar Science described by Paul Brunton in his desciptions of mysticism in India and the answer could be here for all I know. And since I have seen recent posts on Medicine Wheels, I am curious as the people's opinions on both Shamanism and Astrology in terms of the Theosophists. In spite of my gratification that BIrd/ Thompkins in Secrets of the Soil* include an appendix that may honor Leadbeater and Besant as the discoverers of quarks, it has long seemed to me that Leadbeater's visions in *Though Forms" were shamanic in character, that is, that they were indeed visions and perhaps not direct perceptions nor astral constructs, and subject to interpretation for any practical goals mostly by applying archetypes, medicinal perougetives and even Correspondences. I have never known of Blavatsky, Leadbeater or Besant, etc, to feign ignorance, and yet the seeming lack of viable material strategies there seems to correspond to the very areas the Theosophists did not seem to demonstate particular strength that I am aware of. (I have said *seem* too often in this sentence, yet I do not wish to presume otherwise.) (The example of astral crustaceans may indicate not actual astral inhabitants, but in a shamanic style, using crabs as symbols for the human neutrotransmitter, 5-hydroxy-tryptophan (serotonin), which they are said to contain, may imply that this is deficient in the persons in question, both tenantsand patrons of a house of ill repute, and may also indicate a concurrent astrogical set of affliction in both parties, certain insecurites of negative Cancer. Further, the science of correspondences implies to us that walnut, with shells looking something like these claws and implied inmethodsof cracking them, and certain members of the Musaceae family of plants, to name several, would contain serotonin or similar compounds which I am fairly well assured is correct) Have I missed anything, either classical or more recent, that attempts to tie these areas of Theosophy and Astrology, and Shamanism, closer together? Thanks. Rob// ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 09:51:58 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: White Holes, and Theosophists Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970906145158.01264db4@mail.eden.com> At 06:54 AM 9/6/97 -0400, ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net wrote: >Greetings. > >A recent post discusses black holes and their presumable counterparts, >white holes. > >>>>>>>>>clip <<<<<<<<<<<<< > >Have I missed anything, either classical or more recent, that attempts >to tie these areas of Theosophy and Astrology, and Shamanism, closer >together? > >Thanks. > I too would be interested in what info is available on the above. mkr PS: I have personally seen some of the off-the wall Astrology predictions come true in my life. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:38:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <970906113808_83739239@emout14.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-05 14:58:52 EDT, you write: >Rules are >needed for order. Order be damned! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:42:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Two Great Ladies Message-ID: <970906114221_1193981801@emout20.mail.aol.com> Ann, much as I hate to disagree with you, there was no greatness in either one of them. Princess Died was nothing more than a high-school dropout who was picked as Charlie's brood mare because she was the last titled virgin in England over 18 and served no other purpose than to keep tabloid photographers in business (talk about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs). Mother Theresa, rightly called the "Ghoul of Calcutta" never saw a dictator she didn't like while cloaking herself in a aura of pretended righteousness while being one of the most unpleasant psychic vampires on the face of the earth. Good riddance to them both. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:44:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <970906114433_213566314@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-05 15:17:30 EDT, you write: >This is a one-sided slant on things for intended dramatic effect, not a >balanced statement. Take the opposite slant: > Sorry, Eldon. Not really into balance on this. Rules exist to be broken and rulemakers exist to be shot. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:50:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 1225 Message-ID: <970906115049_2083912429@emout03.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-06 01:41:14 EDT, you write: >Will you say the same about the coverage of Mother Teresa, Chuck? >Are these happenings linked? >How many more do we have to lose until the message gets through? > Yes. And it's not a message. It's the universe taking out the garbage. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:52:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Di and Mother T Message-ID: <970906115214_926305901@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-06 01:42:36 EDT, you write: >I think Mother T was more holy, more spiritual, but Di was more complete. >She >would have made a good archetype in a Jungian study of the anima alive in the > >World. Now she is alive in the World Soul. > Please excuse me while I go throw up. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 11:39:55 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Garbage day Message-ID: <199709061739.LAA19202@mailmx.micron.net> Chuck wrote (regarding the death's of Mother Theresa and Princess Diana: >It's the universe taking out the garbage. Really!!! Well, on that note, seems the universe has obviously missed a great big pile. You lucked out, Chuckie babe. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 13:27:53 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709062027.NAA23109@palrel1.hp.com> "A. Safron" wrote: > I reached the peak of my incarnation at the age of 42. I reached the peak of my incarceration at 42 too. Q: What do they call a 42 year old on a hot date? A: A chaperone. >> OK. You win. Still theosophical friends? > Were we ever not? Having Moon in sensitive Pisces, I guess I need lots of reassurance. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 97 21:58:24 UT From: "JOSEPH PRICE" Subject: Violent Women - Hell hath no fury! Message-ID: Ergo, most of us (women) have given some power/sexism "abuse". Sooner or later, depending on what lifetime we're on, we realize that we are manifesting these situations and back off, but on the days we are tired or jealous or uninspired, we lash out at what we "feel" constantly as this dictatorial implicit power/domination thing, thinking, "why is it always I who have to give/smooth/obey/perform/nurture?" I've waited a long time for "the masculinity" to catch up again on the learning curve and join the "feminity" and have no desire to put that in jeapordy again. However....... I am Eagle ......... watch me soar I am Warrior ......... hear me roar I am Mother ....... join with me I am You .......... let me BE And "hell" really does have no fury like a woman's scorn (or a woman spurned, or a woman ignored, or a woman threatened, or a woman "you name it" if it's opposite to Love".) Annette. Keith: I am jumping in in the middle of this, but I want to share my personal experience with women executives. I was at my last job for five years, as long as I acted like an obedient son, things were smooth. I let it be known that I wondered why the husband of the woman CEO was not in any real power. There is more to it of course, but what I found was that women create a real network that is more like a spider web! There was a whole system of middle management women who did nothing but spy and rat on people and get together with Ms. CEO and say: "bubble bubble, toil and trouble to all you stupid men who can only talk about sports!" I am sorry. But women can wear the pants, but they still get together and compare notes which are more often about feelings than empiracal data. I hope I am accussed of sexism, because I am often its victim being gay. But women are from Venus and men are from Mars and gays, well, I humbly must say we come from very advanced esoteric planets :) just joking! Namaste Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 17:43:04 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Chains Message-ID: <199709062207.SAA30979@NetGSI.com> >I have an idea what she may have meant, but for confirmation, do you >have the reference to where she said this? Can't find it right now, but on page 10 of her INNER TEACHINGS she says "We should bear in mind that, in becoming Karmaless, both good as well as bad karma have to be got rid of, and that Nidanas started the aquisition of good karma, are as binding as those induced in the other direction. For both are karma" which is pretty much saying the same thing. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 17:50:43 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Choices as Karma Makers Message-ID: <199709062207.SAA30985@NetGSI.com> >To say that we are condemned to be burned by the mere act of making any choice >is a little too gloomy and fatalistic for me. For one thing, I know of many >counter examples; for another, there has to be something more than perpetual >burning in store for us. It may be gloomy, but I think it is true. Choices make karma, no matter which choice you make. The gods don't make choices, and neither do animals (at least very often). Rather, they act in line with their inner Self nature. This is pretty much what Adepts do as well. When you are compassionate by nature, your choices are very limited in what you can do, but then again, you produce less karma. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 17:56:53 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: More on Chains Message-ID: <199709062207.SAA30989@NetGSI.com> >Both forms of chains surely bind - the golden ones to love, peace >and freedom, the iron ones are heavy boundaries. > >Nicole Suter Nicole, you are touching on an interesting, and difficult subject here. According to Tibetan Buddhism, the gods themselves are bound by golden chains. The human condition, they say, is better because only the human being is able to become free from all binds. If your goal is to be bound to love with golden chains, then you may someday become a god or goddess. But only if we renounce all chains and become free will we ever enter Buddhahood. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 18:08:50 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: More on Rules Message-ID: <199709062246.SAA32597@NetGSI.com> >If I was entirely free to brush my teeth, and >I did so only spontaneously and on the spur of the moment, I would >irregularly brush my teeth. With a fixed rule, I am more likely to >brush them regularly. Tom, your example shows exactly why rules are so troublesome. It all has to do with motive. We should brush our teeth when then get dirty and need cleaning, and not just because its a certain time of day, and certainly not just because our mother says we have to. To blindly follow rules makes us sheep. Of course, in society we have to obey laws and rules in order to peacefully coexist, because, as HPB says (SD I think), humanity as a whole is only in its adolescence. A mature person would not need a written code of conduct, because a mature person would act out of compassion at all times. Sheep need direction and guidance. People should not need this, and at some point along the spiritual Path, this realization dawns and human rules go out the window as so much unnecessary baggage. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 18:21:03 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Yet More on Rules Message-ID: <199709062246.SAA32599@NetGSI.com> >Rules are needed for an efficient and orderly progress of physical >activities. Such as one way traffic, traffic signals, etc. etc. Some of >these are also necessary to protect the physical security and safety of >everyone. No one is really arguing this, Doss. The point I am trying to make is motive. Let your motive be common sense or the common good, rather than I have to because. When you act out of love or compassion, you act with golden chains. When you act out of hope for reward or fear of punishment then you act with iron chains. First change your chains from iron to gold, then dispense with even the gold and act with freedom. >When you go to non physical matters, I don't know what are the rules and who >sets them? Gurus, religious leaders, sacred books, tradition, or whatever. > >Any ideas? Yeah. We pretty much make our own rules in the inner worlds. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 18:30:47 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: unfounded scientific speculation Message-ID: <199709062246.SAA32601@NetGSI.com> >Seriously, I've never understood why >this kind of completely unfounded scientific speculation would have any >appeal outside science fiction. Because such statements deal with >scientific matters but lack any empirical grounding, they are almost >certain to be wrong. Can you explain the appeal In expressing factual >claims of this kind? Tim, there is an appeal because math is the language of relationships and there is a relationship between matter and spirit. I am not sure what you mean by "unfounded scientific speculation" unless you mean unscientifically "proven." What I am saying here is that just as black hole and white holes are apparently connecting links between various spaces and times in the fabric of spacetime, so laya centers may be connecting links between mental, astral, and physical planes. I am not saying that this "proves" anything. These things are all just models of what may exist. Spirit (and etheric, astral, mental, and so on) is "unfounded scientific speculation" but that does not keep me from experiencing it, nor from trying to describe it in words and in models. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 18:39:49 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Rules vs Principles Message-ID: <199709062246.SAA32603@NetGSI.com> >Rules are inherent in Nature and are an aspect of Law. They may >be subtle, but they are there. I am tiring of this whole argument, but I want to point out that while you may really think what you are saying is true, there are some people, myself included, who think otherwise. Rules are very much man-made. Nature works on principles, but these are not "rules" in the sense of right or wrong codes of behavior ("A regulation for standard procedure" and "an established method or way of doing anything" says my Webster). The whole concept of "standard procedure," for example, is purely subject and man-made. Rules can be broken. Principles can not be. I think we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 19:45:34 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Yet More on Rules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970907004534.00bef9d4@mail.eden.com> At 06:47 PM 9/6/97 -0400, Jerry Schueler wrote: >>Rules are needed for an efficient and orderly progress of physical >>activities. Such as one way traffic, traffic signals, etc. etc. Some of >>these are also necessary to protect the physical security and safety of >>everyone. > >No one is really arguing this, Doss. The point I am trying to >make is motive. Let your motive be common sense or the common >good, rather than I have to because. When you act out of love >or compassion, you act with golden chains. When you act out >of hope for reward or fear of punishment then you act with >iron chains. First change your chains from iron to gold, then >dispense with even the gold and act with freedom. > From a "worldly" point of view, sometimes even with wrong motive, much good to our fellow beings can come. For example let us say a philanthropist starts a health care facility to help the needy in the belief that doing something like it will get him to heaven after his/her death, even without his/her knowledge, the wrong motive may indeed earn him/her good Karma, because of the practical help that his act resulted in. >>When you go to non physical matters, I don't know what are the rules and >who >>sets them? Gurus, religious leaders, sacred books, tradition, or whatever. >> >>Any ideas? > >Yeah. We pretty much make our own rules in the inner worlds. > I agree. ..........doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:52:38 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Two Great Ladies Message-ID: <199709070048.UAA24168@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Two Great Ladies > Date: Saturday, September 06, 1997 10:43 AM > > Ann, much as I hate to disagree with you, OK, Chuckie. You can disagree with me. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:54:03 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Di and Mother T Message-ID: <199709070048.UAA24172@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Di and Mother T > Date: Saturday, September 06, 1997 10:53 AM > > In a message dated 97-09-06 01:42:36 EDT, you write: > > >I think Mother T was more holy, more spiritual, but Di was more complete. > >She > >would have made a good archetype in a Jungian study of the anima alive in > the > > > >World. Now she is alive in the World Soul. > > > Please excuse me while I go throw up. You're kindly excused, but please! Don't do it on the rug like the cats! A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 13:55:13 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <199709070048.UAA24179@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Rules > Date: Saturday, September 06, 1997 10:38 AM > > In a message dated 97-09-05 14:58:52 EDT, you write: > > >Rules are > >needed for order. > > Order be damned! > > Chuck the Heretic > In the heart of the Chuck, the Babe, Chaos rules! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 14:47:17 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <199709070048.UAA24188@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 9:50 PM > Tom: > I've neither been beaten up nor have I had my way paid for me due to > my sexual attractiveness. Well, I'm glad about the first and sorry about the second. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 18:39:36 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: George Solti Message-ID: <199709070048.UAA24197@cliff.concentric.net> Hi Chuck Babe! Ain't ya gonna say anything about Solti? Like he should have eaten his baton as a breadstick a snack rather than used it to direct the orchestra? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 19:50:53 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Male/female violence Message-ID: <199709070048.UAA24209@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Male/female violence > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 2:36 PM > > I was on very close terms for four years with the researcher/ > librarian at the National Victim Center, an advocacy group for > victims of violent crime. Part of his job was compiling > statistics from all reliable sources on the subject. We had > several conversations about the frequency of female on male > violence being the same as vice versa, and how violently angry > certain feminists got whenever this was brought up. But he > also said that men do far more damage when they do physical > harm, and kill their partners far more often than women; so this part of > Tom's summary leaves me scratching my head. Thanks for your intelligent and informed post, KPJ. :-) A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:24:09 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Violent Women - Hell hath no fury! Message-ID: In message , JOSEPH PRICE writes >But women are from Venus and men are from Mars and gays, well, I humbly must >say we come from very advanced esoteric planets :) just joking! Gay men from Uranus, Lesbians from Neptune. Mind you, when it comes to "butch" and "femme" ..... :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 20:01:27 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Violent Women - Hell hath no fury! Message-ID: <199709070057.UAA26119@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: JOSEPH PRICE > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Violent Women - Hell hath no fury! > Date: Saturday, September 06, 1997 5:03 PM > > Keith: I am jumping in in the middle of this, but I want to share my personal > experience with women executives. I was at my last job for five years, as > long as I acted like an obedient son, things were smooth. I let it be known > that I wondered why the husband of the woman CEO was not in any real power. > There is more to it of course, but what I found was that women create a real > network that is more like a spider web! There was a whole system of middle > management women who did nothing but spy and rat on people and get together > with Ms. CEO and say: "bubble bubble, toil and trouble to all you stupid men > who can only talk about sports!" There's been a myth floating around for very long time that if women were in charge, then all would be peace, light and goodness. Someone forgot to mention that women are all human beings, with huge flaws, just like men. A woman is an individual, with personality flaws and if I was given her natal chart . . . oh boy! While I still support equal pay, equal jobs, equal sexual satisfaction, etc., my eyes are open to the dark side of the human animal. > > I am sorry. But women can wear the pants, but they still get together and > compare notes which are more often about feelings than empiracal data. I hope > I am accussed of sexism, because I am often its victim being gay. Sexism? That's Tom's territory. > > But women are from Venus and men are from Mars and gays, well, I humbly must > say we come from very advanced esoteric planets :) just joking! Pluto? Namaste A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 00:03:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Early HPB Message-ID: In message , "Dr. A.M.Bain" writes >>I wish there were more research trying to >>>reconstruct HPB's mysterious early travels. >>> >>>-- >>>Tim Maroney >> >>I agree. >> >>It is my feeling that the archives may be accessible in HPB's notes and I >>don't think it is going to be that difficult for someone who is objective as >>well as acceptable. Let us hope we see some work done in this area. > >R.A.Gilbert has done some work in this area. I will try and find >something, or get something from him. > >Alan I have nothing on disk, but I have faxed him to see if he has something quickly available. His researches tend to be objective, well referenced, and often critical of TS "official" views and statements. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 23:17:12 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Di and Mother T Message-ID: In message <970906115214_926305901@emout09.mail.aol.com>, Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Please excuse me while I go throw up. No. Go shoot yourself. AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 00:41:01 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Homosexuality Message-ID: <3421f3e3.32024350@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Keith Price wrote: >But women are from Venus and men are from Mars and gays, well, I humbly >must say we come from very advanced esoteric planets :) just joking! For quite a while, I've had a theory about the cause of homosexuality, and I would like feedback on its possible validity. It came to me while reading some of the books on past lives by Besant and Leadbeater, the relevant part being how individuals would spend a few lives as one gender and then a few lives as the other. I wonder if homosexuality could be caused by a difference in speed of adjustment in the physical and emotional (or at least that part of the emotional that has to do with sexual attraction) aspects while transferring genders, so that, in a certain minority of cases, they don't coincide. I'm not even sure which would be faster - perhaps an individual who was a heterosexual woman who is heading towards maleness in his/her cycle can acquire a male body faster than he/she can acquire a male emotional make-up, and, if incarnation begins before the male emotional make-up has been developed, he/she will be a gay man. Or perhaps, which seems less likely, the heterosexual woman heading towards maleness would develop a male emotional make-up but, for some reason would not be able to develop a male physical body, and would spend one more lifetime as a gay woman before spending a few lifetimes as a heterosexual man. Is there anything which would make this theory impossible? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 97 03:14:33 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: black holes Message-ID: <199709071013.DAA09908@scv2.apple.com> >What I am saying here is that just as black >hole and white holes are apparently connecting links between various >spaces and times in the fabric of spacetime, so laya centers may be >connecting links between mental, astral, and physical planes. Liminality or in-betweenness is a major theme in current scholarship on Western magic and I think it is great that you are working this theme into your personal symbolism in such a prominent way. The development of a deep symbolic web has always been a primary tool of theurgical working. However, so far as I know, white holes are not a subject of study in modern physics. They were a brief-lived speculation that never caught on. You are presenting it as if they were a known fact. That's what I mean by "unfounded scientific speculation." I don't really think of cosmology as a subject to which personal psychic explorations are likely to make a very substantial contribution. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 97 03:19:07 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <199709071018.DAA24678@scv2.apple.com> Tom Robertson strenuously objected to my characterization of the tone of his work as constantly expressing a "vicious" mode toward feminism. He asked several times for examples. But his response itself is the best (or worst) example that could be hoped for. All one needs to do to get examples is respond to him. There was at least one personal attack in almost every sentence and more than one in some. I will provide just one example of paranoid ranting, personal attack, and the invocation of the word "feminist" the way a McCarthyite (or Reichian) would use "Communist": >Could you give an example of my "vicious" enmity towards the >liberation of women? Or did it just sound good, so you wrote it? How >you got your entire perception of what I have written is a total >mystery to me. Could you just be taking the word of biased feminists? Then I saw that, as if one message could not contain his wrath, he had to respond a second time to my same message, this time including more than one personal attack per line. This is bizarre, outraged, outrageous, over-the-top, worrisomely crazy stuff. Let me throw some questions your way, Tom. Catch or not as you will. How do you feel about the inclusion of gender equality in the basic goals statement of the Theosophical Society? How do you feel about the prominence of women in its leadership? Were they fit to serve, and did their service help validate other women's aspirations toward leadership and service in their own life paths? If so, are you glad? Do you feel that the basic direction of feminism (a.k.a. women's liberation and the suffrage movement) from Mary Wollstonecraft through Blavatsky and Besant and on into the present day has been fundamentally misdirected? Do you believe that women are unfairly assigned an oppressed and underprivileged status in society and that this should be remedied? Were there some particular women or feminists that you knew personally who outraged you? What were the events if so? And see if you can leave the constant personal attacks and snide imprecations out of it this time. Thanks. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:53:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: George Solti Message-ID: <970907115312_-1267101294@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-06 20:49:39 EDT, you write: >Hi Chuck Babe! > >Ain't ya gonna say anything about Solti? >Like he should have eaten his baton as a breadstick >a snack rather than used it to direct the >orchestra? He will actually be missed. His work did more to enliven the human spirit than a million mother theresas ever could have. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:55:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Di and Mother T Message-ID: <970907115408_1294950803@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-06 21:14:24 EDT, you write: >No. Go shoot yourself. > No such luck. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 11:55:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <970907115544_658027923@emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-06 22:24:22 EDT, you write: >In the heart of the Chuck, the Babe, Chaos rules! > Of course it does. That's what makes all this so much fun! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 18:52:25 GMT From: mdmgyn@worldnet.att.net (Tom Robertson) Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <3413f3fc.1685648@mailhost.worldnet.att.net> Tim wrote: >Let me throw some questions your way, Tom. Catch or not as you will. >How do you feel about the inclusion of gender equality in the basic goals >statement of the Theosophical Society? Men are superior to women. Gender equality has no place in a society that is devoted to truth. >How do you feel about the prominence of women in its leadership? I find it appalling. >Were they fit to serve, and did their service help validate other women's >aspirations toward leadership and service in their own life paths? Women should serve - never lead. >If so, are you glad? Whenever I see a woman serve a man, I am glad. >Do you feel that the basic direction of feminism (a.k.a. women's >liberation and the suffrage movement) from Mary Wollstonecraft through >Blavatsky and Besant and on into the present day has been fundamentally >misdirected? The greatest statement the TS has made about women is in "The Mahatma Letters," in which the mahatmas were regretting the disadvantages they had in working with HPB because she was female, primarily due to how emotional she was. >Do you believe that women are unfairly assigned an oppressed and >underprivileged status in society and that this should be remedied? Yes. It should be increased. >Were there some particular women or feminists that you knew personally >who outraged you? What were the events if so? Yes. I had a radical feminist girlfriend once who once left her territory (kitchen, bedroom). I made sure _that_ never happened again. >And see if you can leave the constant personal attacks and snide >imprecations out of it this time. Thanks. How did I do? Now, in spite of your not having answered any of mine, let me ask you just one more: If not out of the same kind of prejudice you imply that you oppose, why did you ask me any of these questions? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 20:36:25 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <199709080043.UAA24737@NetGSI.com> > From a "worldly" point of view, sometimes even with wrong motive, much >good to our fellow beings can come. For example let us say a philanthropist >starts a health care facility to help the needy in the belief that doing >something like it will get him to heaven after his/her death, even without >his/her knowledge, the wrong motive may indeed earn him/her good Karma, >because of the practical help that his act resulted in. This all depends on exactly what you mean by "helping" others, Doss. If giving someone good health is "helping" then sure, rules are fine. Rules belong in the physical plane, and are needed there so long as people remain at the low level they currently are. But if "helping" others implies setting them on the spiritual path or goading them into some degree of enlightenment, then rules are a hindrance (because the goal itself is perfect freedom). Also, I take exception to your premise. HPB and many others have all pointed out that it is motive and motive alone that is the difference between white and black actions (magic, karma, whatever). So, giving help to others with the wrong motive will NOT produce any good karma. Sorry. But it just won't. Its not so much what we DO in life (exoteric) as how we ARE in life (esoteric). Bad motives can cancel out good actions. Good motives can cancel out bad actions. If we think we did a good thing, we tend to produce good karma no matter if it was really a bad thing that we did (because good and bad are always subjective and relative). But karma itself is very complex and I am trying to simplify here. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 14:20:10 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Divine Right Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970907142010.0076c9cc@pacbell.net> At 05:38 PM 9/4/97 -0400, Kym wrote: > >Imagining a world without Princess Diana seems an almost impossible task. >And the work of integrating this wretched truth takes a particular form, as >often throughout the day, I feel I've forgotten or neglected to do >something. Maybe Saturday night, the viewing of her funeral will open what >is trying to stay shut. Hi Kym, I too felt a horrendous personal grief at the death of Princess Di. Though I knew that I had long admired her, I just didn't know how much she meant to me until she died. I viewed her funeral early Saturday morning, then viewed it again in its entirety when it was re-telecast later on Saturday. (My sister has me beat with having watched it entirely three times.) I still don't feel the sense of closure that I was hoping for. Perhaps with time. > >I wonder what it means, or what happens, to someone who has died and was so >loved by the world. Was Princess Diana "planned?" Will all the love and >grief expressed over her death alter her "journey?" I think that Princess Diana was a highly evolved spirit who incarnated for an express purpose. Actually two purposes. One was to express the principle of compassion by incarnating into such a position that she would be world famous where that compassion would reach millions. Her example will at least inspire some people to follow which I would expect would create a ripple effect. Another purpose, IMHO, was to start the transformation of the royal family if it indeed still serves some type of karmic purpose. (I'm not sure.) I've read somewhere that expressions of grief from those left behind on the physical plane can delay the process of one's journey through the Devachan. However, I suspect it has a lot to do with the entity involved, if true. Some entities would simply cast off their lower vehicles more quickly than others, IMHO. >And I wonder if the >opening of so many hearts has altered our future - the world, for however >short a period of time, seems united. . .have we taken another "step". . .or >is this really, in the scheme of things, nothing to get worked up about. . .? I've been wondering about this too quite a bit. In fact, this seems to be Princess Di's one last gift to the world, at least for this incarnation. I think that the unity, even if temporary, is a step ahead for humanity. Every good thought, every good deed, has a lasting effect, whether that is for an individual or for larger groups. Even though the world is likely to apparently return to its old ways, there will be some who move ahead, in however tiny a step, and this advances the evolution of humanity as a whole, I believe. So, in a way, it isn't something to get worked up about because we may not be able to discern the change. OTOH, on subtler levels it may be something to get worked up about because small changes may be apparent on those levels. ;-D > >I know, right now, one thing for sure. . .I deeply miss someone I've never >met, and it hurts. Indeed!!! I agree with you totally! Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 14:31:26 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Di and Mother T Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970907143126.00760910@pacbell.net> At 06:04 PM 9/5/97 -0400, Keith wrote: >Well we now have two icons gone. Two holes in the pantheon. There will be >replacements from generation X, but if there music is a preview, I am afraid I >will be as disdainful as QEII. > >No doubt, Mother Teresa, is closer to being the IDEAL of the early >theosophists, but I never EVER hearing of HPB taking to the slums of India to >help the poor, so that let's us off the hook, doesn't it?? Hi Keith, I don't think that it either puts us on the hook or let's us off of it. But actually, you answered this possibly rhetorical question below. ;-D >Mother T and Di really can't be compared, except as representative of >successful women who tried to help humanity. Mother T was more direct and got >her hands dirty, but I really think Di's longterm impact will be longer in >memorials for AIDS childrena and other charities. The poor will always be >with us, but you don't get a go-getter like Di everyday. Now there's the answer to your earlier statement. There are many ways to serve humanity, IMHO. Mother T and Princess Di simply chose two different ways to do it, both of them essential. > >I think Mother T was more holy, more spiritual, but Di was more complete. She >would have made a good archetype in a Jungian study of the anima alive in the >World. Now she is alive in the World Soul. Mother T may have been more obviously spiritual. But without being privy to Di's innermost thoughts, we really don't know for sure. She expressed such a spontaneous form of compassion that was apparent not only in her fundraisers, speeches, etc. but in how she so often touched and stroked people, I suspect that it's the result of a strong inner life, if not in this incarnation, in a preceding one. I love your statement about her being alive in the World Soul. > >I think they are good icons for the old and stodgy puritan spiriuality and the >new effervesing and effervesent Aquarian (media to the tits!) spirituality. I think there is still much to be said for Mother Theresa's expression of spirituality as well as the Aquarian form. We need both. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 14:42:29 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970907144229.0075dbc8@pacbell.net> At 07:28 PM 9/5/97 -0400, Doss wrote: >Rules are needed for an efficient and orderly progress of physical >activities. Such as one way traffic, traffic signals, etc. etc. Some of >these are also necessary to protect the physical security and safety of >everyone. As anarchistic as I am, I have to agree that a few rules are necessary, given that some individuals aren't advanced enough either intellectually or spiritually to totally do without them. (Though, I also believe we have waaaaaaaaaaay more rules than necessary.) > >When you go to non physical matters, I don't know what are the rules and who >sets them? Gurus, religious leaders, sacred books, tradition, or whatever. I have to agree with either Titus or Jerry (sorry, guys) who said that there is a difference between the type of rules that you mentioned in the first paragraph of my excerpt of your post and those for nonphysical matters. Aside from where they originate, they are principles or laws that we cannot escape or disobey until we transcend this evolution. However, what are often referred to as "rules" espoused by teachers, traditions, etc. are often guidelines based on the nonhumanly-originated principles or laws. They're sort of like training wheels for the early stages of the Path and if you discard them too soon, especially before realizing the principles behind them, you'll fall down and get bruised. ;-D Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 15:18:13 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Choices as Karma Makers Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970907151813.00b75e88@pacbell.net> At 06:08 PM 9/6/97 -0400, Jerry wrote: > >It may be gloomy, but I think it is true. Choices make karma, no >matter which choice you make. The gods don't make choices, and >neither do animals (at least very often). Rather, they act in line >with their inner Self nature. This is pretty much what Adepts >do as well. When you are compassionate by nature, your choices >are very limited in what you can do, but then again, you produce >less karma. Hi Jerry, I think that we can make karma-less choices if we act without hope or desire, for that is where the karmic chains are bound. However, I'm speaking of personal karma here. Even once we transcend personal karma, there are higher, incomprehensible (at this stage) levels of karma which binds "the gods" as well, IMHO. After all, if we consider it as being in essence the law of cause and effect, the actions of gods would have effects as well. I do agree with everything else you said. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 15:10:47 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970907151047.0075c878@pacbell.net> At 08:53 AM 9/2/97 -0400, A. Safron wrote: >I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but what do you do when >your mentor/guru/teacher ABANDONS you. Aiiish! That must have been devastating! >And has not left a successor >or sufficient teachings that one feels they can continue on that particular >path. I've been there twice. Once when the guru retired to Hawaii and >wanted to have as little as possible to do with his disciples and the other >who decided a business money-making path was more important than >the church he headed. Have you been able to find solace in the fact that neither of these individuals were worthy gurus in the first place? That despite the pain of being abandoned, it was ultimately the best thing as it turned your quest in another direction? > >Frankly, the only thing that has sustained me over the years is the >Alice Bailey material. Seems these teachers have a tendency to >burn out somewhere along the way. I'm a student of the Alice A. Bailey material myself. The things relevant to this particular discussion that I find appealing about it is a) each of the books dictated by the Tibetan admonish the student to "ascertain their truth by right practice and by the exercise of the intuition; and b) a number of passages that refer to ones own Soul as the initial guru. I've found it to be a wonderful relief to not have to search the world for a guru but to look within. Saves lots of time and energy that would otherwise be expended in exploring blind alleys. ;-D Wishing you the best in finding that guru, whether it be the One within or a true Master without.... Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 23:53:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: New Member Message-ID: <8G+J6TARBzE0EweS@nellie2.demon.co.uk> TI WELCOMES VINCENT! >Please register me as a member of Theosophy International. > >Warm Regards, > >J.Vincent Beall > Personal "welcomes" to vincent@dmv.com Also http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 06:20:51 +0200 From: wichm@xs4all.nl Subject: Homosexuality Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970908042051.00d4a628@mail.xs4all.nl> Tom Robertson wrote: > I wonder if >homosexuality could be caused by a difference in speed of adjustment >in the physical and emotional (or at least that part of the emotional >that has to do with sexual attraction) aspects while transferring >genders, so that, in a certain minority of cases, they don't coincide. Joan Grant suggestion that solitary lives, as a monk for instance, could influence adversely this transition. As to the emotional part of sexual attraction I wonder how an image of the ideal partner arises in childhood in a person. Is it influenced by past lives? By the image of his/her mother/father in its present life? Why do some people aim for particular physical characteristics? Dennis Morris had it that women in general aim for an intelligent appearance of a man capable of protecting the family. I.e. strong facial characteristics and body build. Men are less interested in creating a family. They are not looking for intelligence but more after an innocent prey to conquer, regular features, body build capable of bearing children. Male homosexuals have other preferences than women. They are supposed to discover the female element behind the male facade in men, and vice versa. What intrigues me is whether any psychological studies have been done after the formation of the image of the ideal partner with individuals and in fact what psychological term is used for it. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:10:23 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <199709081317.JAA24558@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) > Date: Sunday, September 07, 1997 1:56 PM > > Tim wrote: > > >Let me throw some questions your way, Tom. Catch or not as you will. > As my laundry goes round and round, and I've finished the dishes, made the bed and added to my shopping list, I ponder you answers. This morning, I complimented my husband on his shirt and tie, having picked them myself, since he'd partially blind. Right now I have an ailing cat sitting in my lap while I type. Bascially, without the feminine forces, the male would be in trouble. Yang without ying would look like an apostrophe. But I think the fact that this issue has gone on so long has made me sanguine and I no longer get "emotional" about it. As long as you don't physically hurt anyone, you may be tolerated by others and castigated by those who are new to your diatribes. It really doesn't matter what you say to me. BTW, I met a woman bishop yesterday. That's what matters to me. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 08:55:33 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970908135533.0121d4c8@mail.eden.com> At 08:57 PM 9/7/97 -0400, techndex@pacbell.net wrote: >At 07:28 PM 9/5/97 -0400, Doss wrote: > >>When you go to non physical matters, I don't know what are the rules and who >>sets them? Gurus, religious leaders, sacred books, tradition, or whatever. > >I have to agree with either Titus or Jerry (sorry, guys) who said that >there is a difference between the type of rules that you mentioned in the >first paragraph of my excerpt of your post and those for nonphysical >matters. Aside from where they originate, they are principles or laws that >we cannot escape or disobey until we transcend this evolution. However, >what are often referred to as "rules" espoused by teachers, traditions, >etc. are often guidelines based on the nonhumanly-originated principles or >laws. They're sort of like training wheels for the early stages of the Path >and if you discard them too soon, especially before realizing the >principles behind them, you'll fall down and get bruised. ;-D > >Lynn One of the problems that we run into when following or listening to teachers, traditions etc. looking for guidelines is there are far too many of the teachers and traditions and more often than not it is very likely that many of them are no good. So far more are likely to be mislead, and that is a real problem. May be for some they have to be burnt before they realize they have chosen the wrong teacher or tradition. In some cases the harm may be so serious that one will get disillusioned about all teachers and traditions. My 2 cents worth. ......doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 08:55:34 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970908135534.01215de0@mail.eden.com> At 08:44 PM 9/7/97 -0400, Jerry Schueler wrote: >> From a "worldly" point of view, sometimes even with wrong motive, much >>good to our fellow beings can come. For example let us say a >philanthropist >>starts a health care facility to help the needy in the belief that doing >>something like it will get him to heaven after his/her death, even without >>his/her knowledge, the wrong motive may indeed earn him/her good Karma, >>because of the practical help that his act resulted in. > >This all depends on exactly what you mean by "helping" others, Doss. >If giving someone good health is "helping" then sure, rules are fine. >Rules belong in the physical plane, and are needed there so long as >people remain at the low level they currently are. But if "helping" >others implies setting them on the spiritual path or goading them >into some degree of enlightenment, then rules are a hindrance >(because the goal itself is perfect freedom). > Physical and emotional suffering is a fact of life. Anything anyone can do which can alleviate or mitigate them, I feel as helping. It could be as simple as a kind word, a kind gesture, giving a little food for a hungry person. I think it is the duty of every thinking person to do so, because not to do so simply shows lack of compassion. Whether it is done with whatever motive, from a very simplistic point view, it can help the suffering person. I am not talking about any spiritual path, because I should know personally for sure of what the path it is, if indeed there is one. (I may have post the Truth is Pathless Land statement of K). I am still at such an novice level as far as personal knowledge of the spiritual path is, I am just at a stage when I am looking for the simple objective of "helping" any one as far as I can, in any manner I can. We all can improve the conditions of the world if more of us try to do the same (I am not telling anyone to do anything -- this urge has to come from the person himself/herself). >Also, I take exception to your premise. HPB and many others have >all pointed out that it is motive and motive alone that is the difference >between white and black actions (magic, karma, whatever). So, >giving help to others with the wrong motive will NOT produce any >good karma. Sorry. But it just won't. Its not so much what we DO >in life (exoteric) as how we ARE in life (esoteric). Bad motives can >cancel out good actions. Good motives can cancel out bad actions. >If we think we did a good thing, we tend to produce good karma >no matter if it was really a bad thing that we did (because good >and bad are always subjective and relative). But karma itself is >very complex and I am trying to simplify here. Again let me look from the recipients/beneficiary's point of view. The fact is that the recipient or beneficiary of my "help", if it does help him or her, then it is a fact and it is all that matters. Since I do not know personally about the working of Karma, any "theory" about it is as good any one else's. I will suspend my judgement about it in the hope one day I will get a better *personal* first hand understanding -- not some second hand one. (And if does happen in this lifetime, I will surely post it here and in all the usenet groups -- I want to share it with the world!). Thanks for your viewpoint. .........doss > >Jerry S. >Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 10:24:30 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Divine feminine Message-ID: <199709081424.KAA15893@leo.vsla.edu> It occurred to me while watching Diana's funeral that this was a rare moment when billions of people around the world were united in a moment that was essentially spiritual. All the people saying the Lord's Prayer was an especially poignant point. But generally, the focus on Diana's higher qualities seems to elevate the whole human race, and Mother Theresa's death only adds to this feeling. It's as if their deaths have caused a mass consciousness of the archetypes of feminine spirituality. Maybe this will pass without any lasting benefits, but for now I feel as if we have all been raised a notch higher in our approach to the divine. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:21:06 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: More on Karma Message-ID: <199709081654.MAA27434@NetGSI.com> >I think that we can make karma-less choices if we act without hope or >desire, for that is where the karmic chains are bound. However, I'm >speaking of personal karma here. Even once we transcend personal karma, >there are higher, incomprehensible (at this stage) levels of karma which >binds "the gods" as well, IMHO. After all, if we consider it as being in >essence the law of cause and effect, the actions of gods would have effects >as well. I do agree with everything else you said. Hi Lynn, glad to hear from you. I agree with what you say. We can only deal with personal karma. Eliminating collective karma is exactly what happens with a Buddha, who leaves us behind never to return. The bodhisattva ideal seems more appealing to me--to decrease our personal karma while working within the collective karma of humanity in order to help others. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:28:16 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Pathless Land Message-ID: <199709081654.MAA27437@NetGSI.com> >I am not talking about any spiritual path, because I should know personally >for sure of what the path it is, if indeed there is one. (I may have post >the Truth is Pathless Land statement of K). Yes Doss, there is a Path. The "Pathless Land" did not originate with K, but can also be found in Zen (Flying geese leave no tracks, etc). K did not mean to imply that there is no Path, but rather that there is no overall One Path--we each must find and tread our own. Which is exactly what K did himself. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 12:33:35 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: The Spiritual Path & Motives Message-ID: <199709081654.MAA27441@NetGSI.com> >I am still at such an novice level as far as personal knowledge of the >spiritual path is, I am just at a stage when I am looking for the simple >objective of "helping" any one as far as I can, in any manner I can. Doss, your modesty is too much! If you are really at such a low level then you really need to ask yourself why? Why do you feel the need to help others? Question your motives. I suspect that you are farther along the Path than you think--which is quite often the case because spirituality is so subtle that sometimes we have grasped it without even knowing it. Jerry S. Member TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:01:30 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Karma & Rules Message-ID: Jerry Schueler writes: "Also, I take exception to your premise. HPB and many others have all pointed out that it is motive and motive alone that is the difference between white and black actions (magic, karma, whatever). So, giving help to others with the wrong motive will NOT produce any good karma. Sorry. But it just won't. Its not so much what we DO in life (exoteric) as how we ARE in life (esoteric). Bad motives can cancel out good actions. Good motives can cancel out bad actions. If we think we did a good thing, we tend to produce good karma no matter if it was really a bad thing that we did (because good and bad are always subjective and relative). But karma itself is very complex and I am trying to simplify here." I wonder where the motive might come from and I think its roots come from the subconcsious. If I learn to be able to let come the subconcsious to the concsious, I am starting to get rid of "wrong" motivs and of karma. Going through the Kama Loka on earth ... ? Its the pain, the ego has already suffered down here , which causes the "bad" motive. That pain that makes out of me a paindrunken monkey. The pain which unables me to be honest to myself. I simply have to go through the door of that pain. At the other end my self is expecting me. And this is much greater than the poor suffering ego. Maybe one should start to use this door more often. ..........doss wrote: "Physical and emotional suffering is a fact of life." If I consider God to be love, how can the above senctence be true? Could it be, the fact is a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that hurts even greater than others because so many are beliving it? Imagine all the force their believs are giving to the "fact" when they are thinking about it, hearing from it, talking about it ... Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 10:01:18 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <199709081701.KAA23987@palrel1.hp.com> "Jerry Schueler" wrote: > HPB and many others have all pointed out that it is motive and motive alone > that is the difference between white and black actions (magic, karma, > whatever). I think you're taking this "rule" a little too rigidly. ;) Only kidding. Reply to my following remarks, not this snotty, infantile, sarcastic one. ;) I agree that many people observe the letter of the law and still cause tremendous harm because of bad motives. I have unfortunately been the victim of such hypocritical "good". But I think it's going beyond the spirit of HPB's words to blindly say that motive alone makes the difference. Some Muslims on Jihad kill people in all sincerity. Their karmic penalty is probably mitigated by their motives, but they still cause misery and invoke karma. If an Islamic "Thou shalt not kill" stopped them until they could develop compassion, I think it saves them karma and does real good. > Good motives can cancel out bad actions. If we think we did a good > thing, we tend to produce good karma no matter if it was really a bad thing > that we did (because good and bad are always subjective and relative). But > karma itself is very complex and I am trying to simplify here. Christians, Muslims and Hindus who kill in all sincerity must have a lot of good karma. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:10:34 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Signed: Confused Message-ID: I've recently plunged back into the SD (for some odd reason I got the urge), and, beginning Anthropogenesis (again. I understand it a little better now...I feel like I must have learned a few things in the past year, but I haven't a clue from where) I found some minor statement that I hope someone might be able to explain. It resides in HPB's explanation of ST 1, VS 1. It goes a little something like this: "The sun was the chief, exoterically, of the twelve great gods, or zodiacal constellations;"[this part is pretty easy, its the next that lost me]..."and, esoterically, the Messiah, the Christos (the subject anointed by the Great Breath, or the One) surrounded by his twelve subordinate powers, also subordinate, in turn, to each of the seven "Mystery-gods" of the planets." What don't I understand? Almost all of it. Here is what I "think" I understand. The mystery-gods are the seven planetary Spirits. That's it. What or who does she mean by the Messiah/Christos? Surely not the Christ(in the flesh). But maybe. I figured that because she stated "esoterically" first, she meant the spiritual aspect of the Christos. Then comes the twelve subordinate powers. The apostles? Still I think not. I think the biggest thing that throws me here is the "in turn". I feel extremely ignorant. It almost seems astrological, and unfortunately, Astrology isn't something I am very familiar with. Can anybody help? Yearning, --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 12:28:07 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: The Spiritual Path & Motives Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970908172807.00bd3a30@mail.eden.com> At 12:57 PM 9/8/97 -0400, you wrote: >>I am still at such an novice level as far as personal knowledge of the >>spiritual path is, I am just at a stage when I am looking for the simple >>objective of "helping" any one as far as I can, in any manner I can. > >Doss, your modesty is too much! If you are really at such a low level >then you really need to ask yourself why? Why do you feel the >need to help others? Question your motives. I suspect that you >are farther along the Path than you think--which is quite often >the case because spirituality is so subtle that sometimes we have >grasped it without even knowing it. > >Jerry S. >Member TI > Thanks Jerry. You have made my day! I will be very glad the day when I personally realize that indeed I am somewhere (anywhere) on the path. Why do I feel I need to help others? It is simple like this. When driving along the highway, I see a man or woman hurt and bleeding. I stop and see what I can do to help the suffering person. I just do it. It does not matter to me how the person got hurt and what could have been done to avoid it etc. Just see the facts and act as best as I can. .......doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:41:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Signed: Confused Message-ID: <970908134003_1127979331@emout08.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-08 13:10:19 EDT, you write: > >"The sun was the chief, exoterically, of the twelve great gods, or >zodiacal constellations;"[this part is pretty easy, its the next that lost >me]..."and, esoterically, the Messiah, the Christos (the subject anointed >by the Great Breath, or the One) surrounded by his twelve subordinate >powers, also subordinate, in turn, to each of the seven "Mystery-gods" of >the planets." Have to do some real digging on this, but on the surface, it would seem that she is referring to a Gnostic teaching from around the second or third century c.e.. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:20:11 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <199709081918.PAA10270@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Tom Robertson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) > Date: Sunday, September 07, 1997 1:56 PM > > Men are superior to women. questions? Sorry, but I just couldn't help this one. Tell me, Tom, when you were 6 weeks old and your momma was changing your poopy diapers, who was superior? (giggle) A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:15:22 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification Message-ID: <199709081918.PAA10259@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: techndex@pacbell.net > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Maya "sugar highs" and delayed gratification > Date: Sunday, September 07, 1997 7:57 PM > > Have you been able to find solace in the fact that neither of these > individuals were worthy gurus in the first place? That despite the pain of > being abandoned, it was ultimately the best thing as it turned your quest > in another direction? Well, it made them look awfully human and they also had probably given me everything they could for this incarnation. These are the good parts of it, but yes, the emotionally cut-off is not good. > > > >Frankly, the only thing that has sustained me over the years is the > >Alice Bailey material. Seems these teachers have a tendency to > >burn out somewhere along the way. > > I'm a student of the Alice A. Bailey material myself. The things relevant > to this particular discussion that I find appealing about it is a) each of > the books dictated by the Tibetan admonish the student to "ascertain their > truth by right practice and by the exercise of the intuition; and b) a > number of passages that refer to ones own Soul as the initial guru. I've > found it to be a wonderful relief to not have to search the world for a > guru but to look within. Saves lots of time and energy that would otherwise > be expended in exploring blind alleys. ;-D > In the end, the Soul revealed itself and became the hardest taskmaster of them of all. Because one is bound to obey it by the overwhelming power of love beyond anything earthly. Still, one can become associated with people that do not look like what they really are. They don't fulfull promises and ask the impossible. Probably sounds familiar. In other words, there are a lot of NUTS out there. It's been nice posting with you. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 17:40:16 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <199709082340.RAA15886@mailmx.micron.net> Nicole wrote: >..........doss wrote: "Physical and emotional suffering is a fact of life." > >If I consider God to be love, how can the above senctence be true? >Could it be, the fact is a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding >that hurts even greater than others because so many are beliving >it? Imagine all the force their believs are giving to the "fact" when >they are thinking about it, hearing from it, talking about it ... God can "be love" and there can still be "physical and emotional suffering." For example, if one believes in the concept of "free will" then some of the pain we suffer can be explained (although it does not explain why animals suffer). You speak of the "force" of "their beliefs" - yes, I agree completely that we can think ourselves into suffering. Yet, there are beings who suffer greatly who do not go around "thinking" about it (again, animals would be an example). Perhaps you may want to define what you consider "love" to mean, thereby defining your concept of God. I would be interested in knowing what you (and anyone else on this list if they care to) believe "love" is. The concept of love doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 14:35:00 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Divine feminine Message-ID: <199709090048.UAA17255@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Divine feminine > Date: Monday, September 08, 1997 9:25 AM > > It occurred to me while watching Diana's funeral that this was > a rare moment when billions of people around the world were > united in a moment that was essentially spiritual. All the > people saying the Lord's Prayer was an especially poignant > point. But generally, the focus on Diana's higher qualities > seems to elevate the whole human race, and Mother Theresa's > death only adds to this feeling. It's as if their deaths have > caused a mass consciousness of the archetypes of feminine > spirituality. Maybe this will pass without any lasting > benefits, but for now I feel as if we have all been raised a > notch higher in our approach to the divine. Another cool post, KPJ. BTW, I've found a church that accepts women as equals in terms of clergy and everything else. It's young, but promising. I'll probably be spending my time there rather than the LCC, which has moved into a new church quite a distance from me - about 15 min. from Olcott. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 19:53:12 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Media Tarot Message-ID: <199709090048.UAA17266@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: JOSEPH PRICE > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Media Tarot > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 5:28 PM > > Thinking about Di and Mother Teresa and the media, I realized that we have > trully entered the Aquarian Church of the Media World Mind, a veritable > tableaux of tarot images, icons and archetypes. > > Di was Isis, Strength and the Sun (as feminine representations of those > cards). Mother Teresa was (the Hermit, and yes! the Heirophant, and the > hanged women). Di reminds me of Libra, full of grace and seeking a partner. Mother Teresa is the ultimate Pisces, serving, serving. serving. I had her chart a a year or so back, but it got trashed. > > OJ Simpson was our devil for a while. President Clinton is the King and the > Fool and that is not a put down, but is exactly why he can screw all the girls > and the American public and get away with it! OJ would be Scorpio, jealous, vengeful. Pres Clinton is Leo, because he IS a Leo - plays the sax at this own inaugural and is loved by the ladies. > > Hillary is the Moon, believe me! Of course movie stars are also iconographic, > Marilyn will always be the Queen, for our generation, then Madona, and now > Alanis Morrisette (?)-kd lang (????) I'd agree with Hillary as the Moon. Madonna is Virgo rising and with other planets in Virgo. Venus in Leo, an indicator of beauty. The rest I'm not familiar with. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 16:31:54 -0700 From: Estrella Subject: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <34148AEA.7836@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> (sorry i accidentally erased the last digest) Er, Chuck, what do you mean with "psychic vampire" when you mention the mother Theresa? (A big ? comming from my mind) Estrella From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:57:34 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Divine Right Message-ID: In message <3.0.2.32.19970907142010.0076c9cc@pacbell.net>, techndex@pacbell.net writes >I too felt a horrendous personal grief at the death of Princess Di. Though >I knew that I had long admired her, I just didn't know how much she meant >to me until she died. I viewed her funeral early Saturday morning, then >viewed it again in its entirety when it was re-telecast later on Saturday. >(My sister has me beat with having watched it entirely three times.) I >still don't feel the sense of closure that I was hoping for. Perhaps with >time. Nor do I (feel the sense of closure). TV estimates that in the UK around 31.5 *million* people watched the funeral live. As we have a population of around 55 million, then if you discount all the younger children, then just about the whole nation were watching. The Pincess Diana Memorial Fund which was immediately set up to support her favorite charities has already reeived millions of UK pounds, and today donations were still coming in at seven thousand pounds *an hour* ... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:12:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <+HWeYNANZIF0EwnU@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199709081918.PAA10270@marconi.concentric.net>, "A. Safron" writes >---------- >> From: Tom Robertson >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) >> Date: Sunday, September 07, 1997 1:56 PM >> >> Men are superior to women. questions? > >Sorry, but I just couldn't help this one. >Tell me, Tom, when you were 6 weeks old and >your momma was changing your poopy diapers, >who was superior? > >(giggle) > >A. Safron When we are born it is usually a woman who holds us upside down by our legs and slaps our butt till we holler! Alan (couldn't resist, either). :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:50:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: In message <3.0.2.32.19970907144229.0075dbc8@pacbell.net>, techndex@pacbell.net writes >However, >what are often referred to as "rules" espoused by teachers, traditions, >etc. are often guidelines based on the nonhumanly-originated principles or >laws. They're sort of like training wheels for the early stages of the Path >and if you discard them too soon, especially before realizing the >principles behind them, you'll fall down and get bruised. ;-D > >Lynn I could not agree more. You bang your head on the wall it hurts - that's law. Motive doesn't come into it. This is more or les how I see "karma." Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 23:48:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <970908234609_-1836270717@emout07.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-08 20:59:52 EDT, you write: >(sorry i accidentally erased the last digest) >Er, Chuck, what do you mean with "psychic vampire" when you mention the >mother Theresa? >(A big ? comming from my mind) > >Estrella Very simple. Mother Theresa may have meant well when she started her work, but then the media got their hands on her and being an ancient Albanian she had no idea of how to deal with it. As the adulation grew, she fed upon it and those who admired her and found herself using her position as the Offical Saint of the Media to promote all her favorite causes, such as the papacy, every dictatorship spawned in South America, cozy up to Baby Doc in Haiti and even a few marxists along the way. Christopher Hitchens called her right. She became a ghoul in the most literal sense, feeding off the energies of the dying to support her pretentions of sanctity and managing to fool of lots of people in the process who never bothered to look past the facade. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 21:11:06 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Rules Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970908211106.00b83418@pacbell.net> At 09:58 AM 9/8/97 -0400, Doss wrote: >One of the problems that we run into when following or listening to >teachers, traditions etc. looking for guidelines is there are far too many >of the teachers and traditions and more often than not it is very likely >that many of them are no good. So far more are likely to be mislead, and >that is a real problem. May be for some they have to be burnt before they >realize they have chosen the wrong teacher or tradition. In some cases the >harm may be so serious that one will get disillusioned about all teachers >and traditions. My 2 cents worth. In some cases, that may not be harm but an occasion for looking within to find ones Inner Teacher. ;-D Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 21:58:11 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970908215811.00b9e984@pacbell.net> At 09:59 AM 9/8/97 -0400, Doss wrote: >Physical and emotional suffering is a fact of life. Anything anyone can do >which can alleviate or mitigate them, I feel as helping. It could be as >simple as a kind word, a kind gesture, giving a little food for a hungry >person. I think it is the duty of every thinking person to do so, because >not to do so simply shows lack of compassion. Whether it is done with >whatever motive, from a very simplistic point view, it can help the >suffering person. Doss, There is a lot of merit, IMHO, to what you said if we can disregard all of the misguided attempts to help the suffering that *ultimately* end up doing more harm than good. An example would be the type of help that provides for the immediate hunger, but is given in such a way that fosters continual dependence on the part of the person suffering, has unconscionable strings attached, or is simply an outright ploy to gain some sort of power over the "helpee". Such efforts, when seen for what they are, are often followed by an angry, "But I was only trying to help!!!!" ;-D Consider the number of those who enter the "helping" professions who are on monumental power trips as an example. >I am not talking about any spiritual path, because I should know personally >for sure of what the path it is, if indeed there is one. (I may have post >the Truth is Pathless Land statement of K). I read somewhere (I forgot where) that one becomes the Path or one with the Path. Thus the apparent paradox you are hinting at. And yes you did post K.'s "The Truth is a Pathless Land". :-) >I am still at such an novice level as far as personal knowledge of the >spiritual path is, I am just at a stage when I am looking for the simple >objective of "helping" any one as far as I can, in any manner I can. We all >can improve the conditions of the world if more of us try to do the same (I >am not telling anyone to do anything -- this urge has to come from the >person himself/herself). Your very modesty is itself evidence of how far you've advanced on the Path. I think that the further you go, the more distant the end of the Path seems to be, because the greater the evolutionary vista becomes that you're able to perceive. As you journey, by the mere fact of your accomplishments, you become aware of the incredible evolutionary challenges ahead that diminish your already hard-won accomplishments to practically nothing. This is just my opinion, of course. >>Also, I take exception to your premise. HPB and many others have >>all pointed out that it is motive and motive alone that is the difference >>between white and black actions (magic, karma, whatever). So, >>giving help to others with the wrong motive will NOT produce any >>good karma. Sorry. But it just won't. Its not so much what we DO >>in life (exoteric) as how we ARE in life (esoteric). Bad motives can >>cancel out good actions. Good motives can cancel out bad actions. >>If we think we did a good thing, we tend to produce good karma >>no matter if it was really a bad thing that we did (because good >>and bad are always subjective and relative). But karma itself is >>very complex and I am trying to simplify here. > >Again let me look from the recipients/beneficiary's point of view. The fact >is that the recipient or beneficiary of my "help", if it does help him or >her, then it is a fact and it is all that matters. > >Since I do not know personally about the working of Karma, any "theory" >about it is as good any one else's. I will suspend my judgement about it in >the hope one day I will get a better *personal* first hand understanding -- >not some second hand one. (And if does happen in this lifetime, I will >surely post it here and in all the usenet groups -- I want to share it with >the world!). > While I agree with Jerry, again you make a wonderful point. The operation of the Law of Cause and Effect is probably one of the most subtlest and most difficult laws to grasp. I agree that it is best to suspend a final judgement on it until we've personally evolved to the point where we truly *know* its operation. There is probably a subtle middle road between both of your positions. One one hand, we have Jesus' admonition that, "by their fruits you will know them" or something like that. In other words a poisoned motive can only bear poisoned karma, which I think is what partially underlies His admonition. I'm still working on trying to articulate "the other hand" which I strongly suspect is there. If someone else can come up with this "on the other hand", please feel free to jump in. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 22:02:17 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Pathless Land Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970908220217.00ba0334@pacbell.net> At 12:56 PM 9/8/97 -0400, Jerry wrote: (quoting Doss) >>I am not talking about any spiritual path, because I should know >personally >>for sure of what the path it is, if indeed there is one. (I may have post >>the Truth is Pathless Land statement of K). > >Yes Doss, there is a Path. The "Pathless Land" did not originate >with K, but can also be found in Zen (Flying geese leave no tracks, >etc). K did not mean to imply that there is no Path, but rather >that there is no overall One Path--we each must find and tread our >own. Which is exactly what K did himself. Swami Vivekananda (Advaitist Vedanta) taught something much similar. This goes to the heart of theosophy, IMHO, which points out the common truths underlying many traditions, garbed as they may be in many robes. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 22:05:52 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: More on Karma Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970908220552.00b9cdc8@pacbell.net> At 12:55 PM 9/8/97 -0400, Jerry wrote: >Hi Lynn, glad to hear from you. I agree with what you say. We can only >deal with personal karma. Eliminating collective karma is exactly what >happens with a Buddha, who leaves us behind never to return. The >bodhisattva ideal seems more appealing to me--to decrease our >personal karma while working within the collective karma of humanity >in order to help others. Hi Jerry, I always enjoy conversing with you! I like the bodhisattva ideal too! Where can I apply? ;-D Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 23:55:30 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Signed: Confused Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970908235530.00b93808@pacbell.net> At 01:08 PM 9/8/97 -0400, Jaqi wrote: > >It resides in HPB's explanation of ST 1, VS 1. It goes a little something >like this: > >"The sun was the chief, exoterically, of the twelve great gods, or >zodiacal constellations;"[this part is pretty easy, its the next that lost >me]..."and, esoterically, the Messiah, the Christos (the subject anointed >by the Great Breath, or the One) surrounded by his twelve subordinate >powers, also subordinate, in turn, to each of the seven "Mystery-gods" of >the planets." > >What don't I understand? Almost all of it. Here is what I "think" I >understand. The mystery-gods are the seven planetary Spirits. That's it. Jaqi, According to astrology, the 12 signs are ruled by the seven planets. (OK, as more planets were discovered and entered human consciousness so that their qualities could be more overtly expressed, some signs were assigned co-rulerships with the more recently discovered planets.) So, on one level, this could explain the subordination of the 12 to the seven. > >What or who does she mean by the Messiah/Christos? Surely not the >Christ(in the flesh). But maybe. I figured that because she stated >"esoterically" first, she meant the spiritual aspect of the Christos. Perhaps she was referring to the Christ Principle or the Principle of Consciousness resulting from the union of Spirit with Matter. In some traditions this would represent the union of the First Aspect, which has also been referred to the Will or Father Aspect with the Third Aspect (Matter or Mother Aspect). This also parallels the Soul or Causal Body which has also been said to result from the union of Spirit with Matter. There are also other trinitarian parallels, for example where the Christ Principle parallels Vishnu, the second aspect of the Brahman godhead. Though I said Christ "Principle", I don't mean to imply that Principles are not entities. But I think if we rely too heavily on an astrological interpretation we may miss HPB's main point, not that I've found it either. ;-D I say this because the chain of correspondences tends to fall apart, at least for me, if we consider the Sun, astrologically, it represents individuality which isn't quite the same thing for me as consciousness. But then again, perhaps it is. Also, we're missing those glossaries accompanying the stanzas which she said on page 23 (the same page containing your passage) which have "The astronomical and astrological keys opening the gate leading to the mysteries of Theogony..." Further down on the page, she sheds a bit of light on this where she says "In the ancient Cosmogonies, the visible and invisible worlds are the double links of one and the same chain. As the invisible Logos, with its seven hierarchies (represented or personified each by its chief angel or rector), form one POWER, the inner and the invisible; so, in the world of Forms, the Sun and the seven chief Planets constitute the visible and active potency; the latter "Hierarchy" being, so to speak, the visible and objective Logos of the invisible and (except in the lowest grades) ever-subjective angels." If the invisible Logos represents Will or Spirit or the First Cause, then the Sun could represent its consciousness (Christ) resulting from its manifestation into matter or that Breath she mentioned. I don't feel that my conjecture here is all that accurate, but is my feeble attempt to interpret this passage somewhat. Very feeble, so folks please hold the rotten tomatoes. ;-D >Then comes the twelve subordinate powers. The apostles? Still I think >not. I think the biggest thing that throws me here is the "in turn". I >feel extremely ignorant. It almost seems astrological, and unfortunately, >Astrology isn't something I am very familiar with. Your intriguing question led me to dig in SD Anthropogenesis. You may find some tantalizing lines of inquiry if you follow references to Siva (the equivalent of the First Aspect), Vishnu (the Christ Principle), and Trinity from the index. I'm still digging because I haven't found the one reference that would definitively apply. (If I find it, I'll let you know.) I don't think that the 12 subordinate powers are the apostles in this regard. I suspect, but am not sure that they and the seven have to do with Emanations from the First Cause. I also suspect that Cosmogenesis may shed more light on all of this, but my head hurts right now from all this effort. ;-D Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 00:16:25 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970909001625.00b832b8@pacbell.net> At 07:43 PM 9/8/97 -0400, Kym wrote: >God can "be love" and there can still be "physical and emotional suffering." >For example, if one believes in the concept of "free will" then some of the >pain we suffer can be explained (although it does not explain why animals >suffer). I agree. However, the question is whether animals actually suffer. They indeed feel pain, a tremendous amount of pain. But one of the things that those of who taught natural childbirth classes often said--there's a difference between pain and suffering. Suffering results from pain but has an added emotional component. So we may need to find out if, and if so, how much of an emotional component is attached to the pain that animals experience. (Note, this is not at all an attempt to legitimize in any way inflicting pain on animals. :-)) > >You speak of the "force" of "their beliefs" - yes, I agree completely that >we can think ourselves into suffering. Yet, there are beings who suffer >greatly who do not go around "thinking" about it (again, animals would be an >example). See above. I totally agree that we can think ourselves into suffering. > >Perhaps you may want to define what you consider "love" to mean, thereby >defining your concept of God. I would be interested in knowing what you >(and anyone else on this list if they care to) believe "love" is. The >concept of love doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. . . To me, love is ultimately the esoteric law of attraction. I like the way that it was put in AAB's "Discipleship in the New Age, Vol. I", page 10: "Love is not a sentiment or an emotion, nor is it desire or a selfish motive for right action in daily life. Love is the wielding of the force which guides the worlds and which leads to the integration, unity and inclusiveness which impels Deity itself to action. Love is a hard thing to cultivate--such is the inherent selfishness of human nature; it is a difficult thing to apply to all conditions of life, and its expression will demand of you the utmost you have to give, and the stamping out of your selfish personal activities." Well, I've manickly babbled enough on theos-l tonight. Sweet dreams to all of you. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:47:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: song Message-ID: <970908234946_568351621@emout17.mail.aol.com> for those of you who may have forgotten how this world really works, I found this on another list. Chuck the Heretic "I am the one, Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand My image is of agony, my servants rape the land Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine & vain Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the Law My name is called Religion, sadistic, sacred Whore I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit I am the emporer of lies, you grovel at my feet I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain And still you play the sycophant and revel in my pain And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate I am the politician, and I decide your fate I march before a martyred world, an army for the fight I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave I lead you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave Your bones will build my palaces, your eyes will stud my crown For I am Mars, the god of war, and I will cut you down." ------Motorhead From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 07:55:04 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <199709091304.JAA21758@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: song > Date: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 6:48 AM > > for those of you who may have forgotten how this world really works, I found > this on another list. > > Chuck the Heretic > > "I am the one, Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand > My image is of agony, my servants rape the land > Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine & vain > Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name > Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the Law > My name is called Religion, sadistic, sacred Whore > > I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit > I am the emporer of lies, you grovel at my feet > I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain > And still you play the sycophant and revel in my pain > And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate > I am the politician, and I decide your fate > > I march before a martyred world, an army for the fight > I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might > I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave > I lead you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave > Your bones will build my palaces, your eyes will stud my crown > For I am Mars, the god of war, and I will cut you down." > > ------Motorhead Who the hell is Motorhead? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 08:02:08 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <199709091304.JAA21762@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... > Date: Monday, September 08, 1997 10:49 PM > > Very simple. Mother Theresa may have meant well when she started her work, > but then the media got their hands on her and being an ancient Albanian she > had no idea of how to deal with it. There was an article in the paper yesterday. Actually, a sidebar that says Mother Theresa's movement is in danger now that she has died. Few donors know what the actual movement was ever called and identify only with her name. Also, there are personality clashes within the order now that she is not leading with a firm hand. Volunteers do not believe that Sister Nirmala, a 63-yr-old former head of the contemplative wing has the charisma to attract financial donations needed to keep the orgranization running. -Chicago Sun-Times, Monday, Sept. 8, 1997 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:50:38 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: song Message-ID: Chuck the Heretic: Sorry, but I can't resist to ask you something: How many planets does your own Zodiac have? Could it be, that you are so special that Mars alone is creating you? Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:35:10 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <199709091532.LAA23718@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Nicole Suter > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: song > Date: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 9:51 AM > > To: Chuck the Heretic > > Sorry, but I can't resist to ask you something: How many planets > does your own Zodiac have? Could it be, that you are so special > that Mars alone is creating you? > If you're interesting and astrologically inclined, I have Chuck's chart info, although I haven't done much with it. He's a Virgo. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:39:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <970909113756_638693076@emout02.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-09 09:12:25 EDT, you write: >Who the hell is Motorhead? > Damned if I know! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 11:44:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <970909114225_34038998@emout17.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-09 11:04:17 EDT, you write: > >Sorry, but I can't resist to ask you something: How many planets >does your own Zodiac have? Could it be, that you are so special >that Mars alone is creating you? > >Nicole Suter I think there are forty three planets in my zodiac, all of them badly aspected. And as that must mean that the universe intensely dislikes me, I feel some small obligation to return the favor. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 97 17:18:43 UT From: "JOSEPH PRICE" Subject: Sexuality and Life Waves from Planets Message-ID: > > But women are from Venus and men are from Mars and gays, well, I humbly must > say we come from very advanced esoteric planets :) just joking! Pluto? Namaste A. Safron Short response: No, Puto (hablas espanol?) Long: I have long suggested on this list that karma, evolution, after death states, pre-birth states and the elements of reincarnation are far more complex than has been stated in the literature (by the more obvious writers and commentators, not necessarily HPB). If each planet has seven levels of evolutions from physical to mental to spiritual as each individual does, isn't it likely that these are combined as in sexual procreation or recombinant DNA to stretch for an anlogy!! In other words if life waves are coming from various "planets" not the physcial globes, but the whole idea of chains and rounds and races in evolution, then isn't it likely that we are all mixtures of the total karma of the human race, the earth, the solar system, the galaxies and the parallel universeS Yes we might have a sutratama or necklace where are lives are strung like beads on a chain (that chain again!), but that we aren't such precious individual representations, no more that earth is special or our sun. The exoteric religions use the idea of the individual soul to beat their followers into fear of eternal states of hell. The real reason is to provide social cohesion (at the best) and dictatorship at its worst! Thus men, women, gays, lesbians, and transgenders are all crazy mixed up conglomerations of spirals and cycles of evolution that the rational mind can only glimpse throught the intuition (in my humble opionion) and not pin it all down like a dead butterfly! But if I was a butterfly, I would like to be one of those giant cobalt blue! Wouldn't you? Namaste - Have a nice day, like Sondra Raye, Louise Haye and Doris Day Keith Price From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 97 17:32:17 UT From: "JOSEPH PRICE" Subject: Reply to Lynn on Di Message-ID: > Keith: >I think they are good icons for the old and stodgy puritan spiriuality and the >new effervesing and effervesent Aquarian (media to the tits!) spirituality. I think there is still much to be said for Mother Theresa's expression of spirituality as well as the Aquarian form. We need both. Lynn Keith: Good point! I fell into my own either/or trap. It isn't that we should all think and be alike, but do the will of "G-d" or follow our bliss (Campbell) or work out our salvation, or fullfill our dharma - did I forget Allah? We can stand on the shoulders of the Pisean Age and all their representative from Christ to Mother T just to name two. All twelve signs will always be there in almost every possible combination and permutation. The accent will be on the electronic, the group, the mass, computers, detached humanitarinism (perhaps due more and more to such dangers as land mines ( as Di suggested), infection from the various "plaugues" like Ebola and HIV, and nuclear and chemical pollution). Less can we go to Bosnia, Somalia and Tibet, but may more and more, try to "pray" and contibute by communication over the internet etc. Pisces and Aquarius are not that unrelated. They are both wise old outter planets. Maybe they will work together as Princess DI and Mother Theresa did briefly! Namaste Keith From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:22:09 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <341593D1.78F3D563@micron.net> A. Safron wrote to Nicole: > If you're interesting and astrologically inclined, What if she's boring and astrologically inclined? > I have > Chuck's chart info, although I haven't done much with it. > He's a Virgo. I would have sworn Chuck claimed to be a Scorpio - but, since you're supposed to be highly reputable, I'll take your revelation that he's a Virgo as gospel - for that explains alot - and, as a Scorpio myself, I find it a blessed relief. In your debt, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:51:29 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: In message <199709082340.RAA15886@mailmx.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >Perhaps you may want to define what you consider "love" to mean, thereby >defining your concept of God. I would be interested in knowing what you >(and anyone else on this list if they care to) believe "love" is. The >concept of love doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. . . Love is recognising that all of creation and its creatures are interconnected. Each life is a single drop of water in an ocean of being. Without the drops, no ocean. Without the ocean, no drops. "God" is the fact of Being per se, timeless, permeating all, both visible and invisible. My two-penn'orth. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:27:43 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <199709100051.UAA19557@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: song > Date: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 10:45 AM > > In a message dated 97-09-09 11:04:17 EDT, you write: > > > > >Sorry, but I can't resist to ask you something: How many planets > >does your own Zodiac have? Could it be, that you are so special > >that Mars alone is creating you? > > > >Nicole Suter > > I think there are forty three planets in my zodiac, all of them badly > aspected. And as that must mean that the universe intensely dislikes me, I > feel some small obligation to return the favor. That's bullshit, Chuck. You know perfectly well that your POF in the second house of wealth sextiles your Pluto in the fourth, allowing you to almost conjure money, especialling in gambling. Would you like to hear more? A. Safron > Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:22:15 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <199709100051.UAA19543@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: kymsmith@micron.net > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: song > Date: Tuesday, September 09, 1997 1:22 PM > > A. Safron wrote to Nicole: > > > If you're interesting and astrologically inclined, > > What if she's boring and astrologically inclined? > > > I have > > Chuck's chart info, although I haven't done much with it. > > He's a Virgo. > > I would have sworn Chuck claimed to be a Scorpio - but, since you're > supposed to be highly reputable, I'll take your revelation that he's a > Virgo as gospel - for that explains alot - and, as a Scorpio myself, I > find it a blessed relief. Yes, I found it explained a great deal when I found he was a Virgo. It was as if the heavens opened and light shone thru the clouds. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:36:06 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <199709100106.VAA03131@NetGSI.com> >But I think it's going beyond the spirit of HPB's words to blindly say that >motive alone makes the difference. Some Muslims on Jihad kill people in all >sincerity. Their karmic penalty is probably mitigated by their motives, but >they still cause misery and invoke karma. If an Islamic "Thou shalt not kill" >stopped them until they could develop compassion, I think it saves them karma >and does real good. As usual, Titus, you are very perceptive. But I don't see how your comments above mitigate my premise restated in your first line. Anyone who kills another out of ignorance produces no more karma than an lion or bear would. I agree that they still cause karma and misery, but this goes into the collective pool rather than their personal burden. A lot of misery going on today is because of our collective karma (just one example, what the white man did to the red man will have to be karmically balanced someday, and the whole white race will pay a collective price). When I speak of motive causing karma, I am speaking only of personal karma (along with motive, guilt, and other emotions also have a part to play as does memory). >Christians, Muslims and Hindus who kill in all sincerity must have a lot >of good karma. The interesting thing about this is that a good Christian, who honestly believed he was helping the Heathen by killing them (before they did even more sins) probably did get good karma from it--at least until his conscience caught up to him, likely during the after-death life review. But when you talk about whole groups of people like this, you are talking collective karma, not personal karma, and the two work somewhat differently. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 19:40:09 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: On the Path & Not Knowing It Message-ID: <199709100106.VAA03137@NetGSI.com> >Why do I feel I need to help others? It is simple like this. When driving >along the highway, I see a man or woman hurt and bleeding. I stop and see >what I can do to help the suffering person. I just do it. It does not matter >to me how the person got hurt and what could have been done to avoid it etc. >Just see the facts and act as best as I can. > >.......doss/mkr Sounds like you act spontaneously. In which event, I rest my case. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:01:25 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Rules & Karma Message-ID: <199709100107.VAA03148@NetGSI.com> >I could not agree more. You bang your head on the wall it hurts - that's >law. Motive doesn't come into it. This is more or les how I see "karma." > >Alan Alan, you are certainly right when you speak of physical karma. Physical karma (i.e., cause & effect) cares not a wit for motive or intent. I wouldn't think that karma on the emotional or astral plane would care all that much either. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 20:27:29 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: A few hints Message-ID: <199709100107.VAA03172@NetGSI.com> >According to astrology, the 12 signs are ruled by the seven planets. (OK, >as more planets were discovered ... A few hints... HPB always talked about 7 planets and 7 globes. The 7 globes are situated on the lower 4 cosmic planes (below the Abyss). G de Purucker continued this with 12 globes on 7 planes. So we can see that when we speak about the manifested planes or worlds below the Abyss we talk about 7, while when we include those above the Abyss and look at the "big picture" we talk about 12. Our sun is hardly the "chief" of the 12 constellations of the zodiac, except in the sense that it produces more light for us on Earth. Thus, this idea is "exoteric." The esoteric Christos could be many things, including the archetypal Self as defined by Jung, in which case the 12 subordinates with be the "lesser" primary archetypes. Usually the esoteric Christos refers to our inner god, and this, during each incarnation, is subordinate to the planetary Rulers (i.e., accepts and follows their laws). I also agree with Chuck--her idea relates to Gnosticism and the 7 & 12 Aeons. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 19:18:59 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma and Rules Message-ID: <199709100219.TAA01782@palrel1.hp.com> "Jerry Schueler" wrote: > Anyone who kills another out of ignorance produces no more > karma than an lion or bear would. I agree that they still cause > karma and misery, but this goes into the collective pool rather > than their personal burden. A lot of misery going on today is > because of our collective karma (just one example, what the > white man did to the red man will have to be karmically balanced > someday, and the whole white race will pay a collective price). > When I speak of motive causing karma, I am speaking only of > personal karma (along with motive, guilt, and other emotions > also have a part to play as does memory). Interesting comments. Possibly true. I think it depends on a person's level of evolvement. As we progress, we become more individually responsible for our actions and bear more karma individually. How else could we emerge from the collective soup? I don't know about producing no more karma than a lion or bear. An animal has instincts to kill based on its necessity to survive. Man, having consciousness, is not so dependent on instinct and bears the burden of making choice - so he probably always has some personal karma. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 00:22:42 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: More on Karma Message-ID: In message <3.0.2.32.19970908220552.00b9cdc8@pacbell.net>, techndex@pacbell.net writes >Hi Jerry, > >I always enjoy conversing with you! I like the bodhisattva ideal too! Where >can I apply? ;-D > >Lynn Send $500 for your *personal* certificate .... Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 21:52:08 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Divine Message-ID: <3415FD48.3FB3@globalserve.net> Still reading. Just thought some might be interested that, on my druid/warrior list, someone has just analyzed a Nostradamus quatrain(?sp) line by line showing how Princess Diana's life and death was prohesized. Mind boggling. A warning more about the continued existance of the monarchy than planetary sprituality it seems. Fancy living in a republic, Alan? Crikey. Hey Doss. I made Peter read your stuff and he has been given the go ahead to get a computer for the org. He's going to try to do the newsletter in HTML(?) format for immediate posting on the Net, but MAKES NO PROMISES ( and he'll mentally crucify me for opening my big mouth ). annette From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 23:21:11 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Rajni Patel Message-ID: <34161227.54E0@globalserve.net> The Toronto Theosophical Soc. is hosting Rajni Patel for 10 days in Sep. Former President of Birmingham Lodge, England, Rajni will impart experience with Yoga and Krishnamurti's teachings. Talks: Sept 12, Psychology of Yoga; Sept 13, River of Life; Sept 19, Reflections on the Teachings of Krishnamurti; Sept 20, Awakening of Insight; Sept 16-19, Yoga, Pranayama and seminars on "meditation - a way of life". All events free. Call (416)231-5436 for details. If anything novel or amazing manifests from this, I'll let you know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 23:43:40 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: On the Path & Not Knowing It Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970910044340.00beaa54@mail.eden.com> At 09:08 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >>Why do I feel I need to help others? It is simple like this. When driving >>along the highway, I see a man or woman hurt and bleeding. I stop and see >>what I can do to help the suffering person. I just do it. It does not >matter >>to me how the person got hurt and what could have been done to avoid it >etc. >>Just see the facts and act as best as I can. >> >>.......doss/mkr > >Sounds like you act spontaneously. In which event, I rest my case. > >Jerry S. >Member, TI > Jerry: I just mentioned my way of looking and acting. For some reason, even in some other non business decisions, spontaneous actions I have taken turned out to be very sound ones. In most instances, I can sense it when I get into such action. .....doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 23:48:02 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Divine Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970910044802.00bcbfd4@mail.eden.com> At 10:59 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >Still reading. Just thought some might be interested that, on my >druid/warrior list, someone has just analyzed a Nostradamus >quatrain(?sp) line by line showing how Princess Diana's life and death >was prohesized. Mind boggling. A warning more about the continued >existance of the monarchy than planetary sprituality it seems. >Fancy living in a republic, Alan? Crikey. > >Hey Doss. I made Peter read your stuff and he has been given the go >ahead to get a computer for the org. He's going to try to do the >newsletter in HTML(?) format for immediate posting on the Net, but MAKES >NO PROMISES ( and he'll mentally crucify me for opening my big mouth ). >annette > Glad to hear. With someof the word processing programs such as Wordperfect, one can quickly create HTML files directly, though I do not have first hand knowledge. BTW, I have access to a scanner. So in the meanwhile if Peter wants any of the stuff to be posted here, I can do it if you can send me the hard copy. It is stuff like what Peter puts out will be found by the subscribers interesting and that is what is going to increase the number of subscribers. .....doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 23:50:53 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Rajni Patel Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970910045053.00bba794@mail.eden.com> At 11:20 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >The Toronto Theosophical Soc. is hosting Rajni Patel for 10 days in Sep. >Former President of Birmingham Lodge, England, Rajni will impart >experience with Yoga and Krishnamurti's teachings. Talks: Sept 12, >Psychology of Yoga; Sept 13, River of Life; Sept 19, Reflections on the >Teachings of Krishnamurti; Sept 20, Awakening of Insight; Sept 16-19, >Yoga, Pranayama and seminars on "meditation - a way of life". >All events free. Call (416)231-5436 for details. >If anything novel or amazing manifests from this, I'll let you know. > Hi If any of the transcripts or summaries are available, if they can be posted here, it would help all of us who could not be in Toronto for the lectures. ..doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 23:53:30 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Rajni Patel Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970910045330.00bd5160@mail.eden.com> At 11:20 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >The Toronto Theosophical Soc. is hosting Rajni Patel for 10 days in Sep. >Former President of Birmingham Lodge, England, Rajni will impart >experience with Yoga and Krishnamurti's teachings. Talks: Sept 12, >Psychology of Yoga; Sept 13, River of Life; Sept 19, Reflections on the >Teachings of Krishnamurti; Sept 20, Awakening of Insight; Sept 16-19, >Yoga, Pranayama and seminars on "meditation - a way of life". >All events free. Call (416)231-5436 for details. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >If anything novel or amazing manifests from this, I'll let you know. Glad to see that all events are free, this in the modern western world where everyone comes up with several reasons why some fee or "suggested" "donations" or plate passing is justified. I am very happy about it. ........doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:09:29 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: song Message-ID: A. Safron wrote: "If you're interesting and astrologically inclined, I have Chuck's chart info, although I haven't done much with it. He's a Virgo." Thank you for the offered chart info - but I guess I wouldn't be a help because I only have a little idea about astrology. To Chuck the Heretic: Thank you for the answer - I simply had to laugh out. It never ever came into my mind, that an universe might dislike someone. I guess I have to meditate about that. Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:21:11 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Karma & Roules Message-ID: Jerry Schueler wrote: "As usual, Titus, you are very perceptive. But I don't see how your comments above mitigate my premise restated in your first line. Anyone who kills another out of ignorance produces no more karma than an lion or bear would. I agree that they still cause karma and misery, but this goes into the collective pool rather than their personal burden. A lot of misery going on today is because of our collective karma (just one example, what the white man did to the red man will have to be karmically balanced someday, and the whole white race will pay a collective price). When I speak of motive causing karma, I am speaking only of personal karma (along with motive, guilt, and other emotions also have a part to play as does memory)." I think, that everybody who kills somebody is very silly - both of them are dying anyway - this is just a matter of time. "Physical karma (i.e., cause & effect) cares not a wit for motive or intent." I can not understand what you are trying to say here. Why do you depart karma? Is there also a psychical karma then? Where do both start and end? Somehow this sounds as if a doctor does say to his cancer-patient "good morning Mr. X, it is a wonder that you are still alive, according to our medical tests you are supposed to have died two month ago" ... Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:21:57 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <199709101721.KAA10477@palrel1.hp.com> From: Drpsionic@aol.com > Very simple. Mother Theresa may have meant well when she started her work, > but then the media got their hands on her and being an ancient Albanian she > had no idea of how to deal with it. > As the adulation grew, she fed upon it and those who admired her and found > herself using her position as the Offical Saint of the Media to promote all > her favorite causes, such as the papacy, every dictatorship spawned in South > America, cozy up to Baby Doc in Haiti and even a few marxists along the way. I don't know about cozying up to "every dictatorship spawned in South America", but in the case of Baby Doc, her "cozying up" merely consisted of accepting money donated by him. In answer to critics, she said that it was one of the few glimmers of conscience in Duvalier. By using the money for good, she said, it would help Duvalier's soul. She gained no personal comforts from his donation and used it for the poor. > Christopher Hitchens called her right. She became a ghoul in the most > literal sense, feeding off the energies of the dying to support her > pretentions of sanctity and managing to fool of lots of people in the process > who never bothered to look past the facade. In addition to gaining few material comforts for her work, when she was physically well, she maintained a vigorous schedule, spending hours of a day doing very unglamorous things such as pulling maggots out the stinking flesh of the dying. She alleviated more misery in a few good days than you or I will do in several lifetimes. Diana, on the other hand ... Let me don my "bullet proof and flame proof vest" .. She was a good woman, but no saint. It is right that she be honored, but the public response seemed quite out of proportion to me. Writing a check, meeting with dignitaries, or attending a banquet for a few hours, while spending many other hours in resorts, luxury hotels and BMW's is different from getting your fingers dirty and giving your *whole* life to a cause. I am glad that so many people prayed at once during her service and welcome reminders of charitable acts (not only the writing of a check), but where is such devotion to God? What about other people who gave their *lives* to a good cause? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:23:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <970910132241_725739398@emout01.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-10 04:11:25 EDT, you write: > It never ever came into my mind, that an universe might >dislike someone. That's when it feels benevolent, about once every ten years. YOu don't even want to think about the rest of the time. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:27:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <970910132514_1627555901@emout04.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-10 05:57:18 EDT, you write: >: As I laugh me head off, the Scorpio reference was a long time ago and referred to a running character in The Lives of Alcyone. Scorpio was the bad guy who kept making life interesting for the rest of the characters, so of course it had to be me in a previous series of incarnations. It had nothing to do with astrology. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:30:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <970910132746_483649670@emout08.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-10 06:25:38 EDT, you write: >That's bullshit, Chuck. You know perfectly well that your POF in the second >house >of wealth sextiles your Pluto in the fourth, allowing you to almost conjure >money, >especialling in gambling. > >Would you like to hear more? > >A. Safron Oh, let me have my fun! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:48:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <970910134729_-1198659571@emout01.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-10 13:29:09 EDT, you write: >In addition to gaining few material comforts for her work, when she was >physically well, she maintained a vigorous schedule, spending hours of a day >doing very unglamorous things such as pulling maggots out the stinking flesh >of the dying and feeding off their energy fields at the same time. That's how she kept her strength up. One of the terrifying things I've learned in the last ten years since I became something of a celebrity in the psychotronic world is that no matter how vile something is, there is someone who can draw from it. Because such a thing is incomprehensible to those who do not experience it or have not had the misfortune to see it close up, they assume that the sort of thing Mother Theresa did was out of sanctity. In fact, it was something far more unpleasant than that state which only leads to being terribly boring. Her activities were not so much helping as a sort of psychic necrophilia. She was literally getting off on it. Of course, if she could have taken money from Hitler she would have. In fact she probably would have voted for him. She did not act out of the goodness of her heart, because by the time she died there was probably very little goodness left in it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:33:55 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma & Roules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970910183355.01292028@mail.eden.com> At 10:21 AM 9/10/97 -0400, Nicole Suter wrote: > >I think, that everybody who kills somebody is very silly - both of >them are dying anyway - this is just a matter of time. > I have pondered over this issue of one person killing another. From a practical point of view, the act however disgusting and immoral etc etc, I think one should look at the consequences that follow. The person who is killed, has no more problems. Usually a number of others, primarily family, in many cases others who depend on the person who is killed have to live with the result of the sudden removal of the person. And the effects -- sufferings and problems may last a long time for the living. I think this is where the real issue of Karma seems to come up. Just a thought. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:36:24 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: song Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970910183624.0128e948@mail.eden.com> At 01:28 PM 9/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-09-10 05:57:18 EDT, you write: > >>: > >As I laugh me head off, the Scorpio reference was a long time ago and >referred to a running character in The Lives of Alcyone. Scorpio was the bad >guy who kept making life interesting for the rest of the characters, so of >course it had to be me in a previous series of incarnations. It had nothing >to do with astrology. > >Chuck the Heretic > I wondered about Scorpio. Now I know! ........doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:26:07 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Hey, Chuck - Titus Message-ID: <199709101926.NAA01855@mailmx.micron.net> Titus wrote: >Diana, on the other hand ... Let me don my "bullet proof and flame proof vest" >.. She was a good woman, but no saint. It is right that she be honored, but >the public response seemed quite out of proportion to me. Writing a check, >meeting with dignitaries, or attending a banquet for a few hours, while >spending many other hours in resorts, luxury hotels and BMW's is different >from getting your fingers dirty and giving your *whole* life to a cause. I believe you're overlooking the "symbolism" of Diana. It has been said that most of the grief over Diana has been from women - I don't doubt this. It's hard to explain - unlike Mother Theresa, who is hailed to have had none (save Chuck) - it was Diana's "faults" and her overcoming of them, her stumbles, her dumb choices, etc. . .that brings her closer to people's hearts. Most of us know we'll never be a "Mother Theresa," but Diana showed us that we can still be compassionate, loving, able to laugh, to retain composure - despite our faults. "Mother Theresa," kinda like Theosophy, hover just above "the masses." But, it's people like Diana who know how to communicate to the general public who end up getting more of the message out there. "Devotions to God" take many forms, I think. SIDE NOTE: I find it interesting, though - many people automatically think that since someone is so loved by "the masses," his/her message or works are somehow lacking. If one is so loved by so many, they've got to be on the wrong path. . .isn't the "path" supposed to be full of suffering and self-denial. . .one isn't supposed to have a good time. . .one can't possibly be a "Way-shower" if it seems they haven't, at least, missed a meal. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 13:26:04 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Hey, Chuck... Message-ID: <199709101926.NAA01845@mailmx.micron.net> Chuck wrote: >One of the terrifying things I've learned in the last ten years since I >became something of a celebrity in the psychotronic world What is a - or what does it mean - "celebrity in the psychotronic world?" Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:40:59 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: New Web page Message-ID: <199709101935.PAA04985@newman.concentric.net> Hello folks of Theos-l! I have a new and improved web page. Actually it is a much smaller page, but it links to worlds vaster than before. Take note: Dr. Bain & Chuck the Babe Other suggestions, especially for links to pages about feminine energies would be welcome. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:43:38 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Correction to new web page:the URL Message-ID: <199709101937.PAA05653@newman.concentric.net> Pardon moi. Here is URL: http://www.concentric.net/~Safron/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:47:05 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <199709101941.PAA06725@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... > Date: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 1:13 PM > > In a message dated 97-09-10 13:29:09 EDT, you write: > > >In addition to gaining few material comforts for her work, when she was > >physically well, she maintained a vigorous schedule, spending hours of a day > >doing very unglamorous things such as pulling maggots out the stinking flesh > >of the dying > Are you a member of the Addams Family? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:18:19 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: The Number 7 Message-ID: <3417008B.7B5D@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > In message <34065960.B28@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky > writes > >Another possibility is that two > >ones, to balance, need a fulcrum, making 3, and two threes, to balance, > >need a fulcrum, making 7. > > The "Star of David" or hexagram of two interlaced triangles is a useful > example. There are six points sharing a common seventh - the centre. That fits in with the concept of 6 + Unity, which makes a lot of sense to me. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:12:58 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Rules & Karma Message-ID: <199709102045.QAA14096@NetGSI.com> >Interesting comments. Possibly true. I think it depends on a person's level of >evolvement. As we progress, we become more individually responsible for our >actions and bear more karma individually. How else could we emerge from the >collective soup? Absolutely agree. Emerging from the collective soup is our big developmental task right now. The basic idea, and this comes from Ken Wilber, is that we begin in an unconscious collective, emerge into an individuality, and then rise into a conscious collective (Wilber's pre-trans and post-trans paradigm). >I don't know about producing no more karma than a lion or bear. An animal has >instincts to kill based on its necessity to survive. Man, having >consciousness, is not so dependent on instinct and bears the burden of making >choice - so he probably always has some personal karma. Unfortunately, there are many people who kill from fear who are not much more evolved than an animal. Karma, at least mental or psychic karma, is only really effective after establishing a conscience. It is the conscience, a result of moral development, that produces most personal karma (karma in the sense of punishments and rewards). You are quite right that every time we make a decision or choice, we make new karma. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:19:01 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Webs, HTML & Wordperfect Message-ID: <199709102045.QAA14099@NetGSI.com> >Glad to hear. With someof the word processing programs such as Wordperfect, >one can quickly create HTML files directly, though I do not have first hand >knowledge. Doss, I use Wordperfect 8.0 to initially flesh out web pages. But it has drawbacks when it comes to fine-tuning. So, after using Wordperfect to get a broad-brush picture of a web site, I get the fine details using plain ol' HTML in my web designer program. To do a really nice web page, you still pretty much need to know the language (I know just enough to be dangerous). Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:38:21 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <199709102045.QAA14104@NetGSI.com> > I have pondered over this issue of one person killing another. From a >practical point of view, the act however disgusting and immoral etc etc, I >think one should look at the consequences that follow. The person who is >killed, has no more problems. Usually a number of others, primarily family, >in many cases others who depend on the person who is killed have to live >with the result of the sudden removal of the person. And the effects -- >sufferings and problems may last a long time for the living. I think this is >where the real issue of Karma seems to come up. Just a thought. > >mkr There may be more to it than that, Doss. In psychology, it is well known that some people have a "victim mentality." If we all truly communicate telepathically, then it just could be that a victim sends out thoughts about wanting to die, and these are picked up by a would-be mugger or murderer who is then subconsciously drawn to the victim and commits the crime. Same could be true with rape. It is a possibility worth considering, but whatever the case, the karma is all the same, and the telepathy is more in the nature of methodology. In each case, we have to ask "why" such and such a person? Why that night? Why me? etc. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:29:52 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Rules & Karma Message-ID: <199709102045.QAA14101@NetGSI.com> > can not understand what you are trying to say here. Why do you >depart karma? Is there also a psychical karma then? Where do >both start and end? Somehow this sounds as if a doctor does say >to his cancer-patient "good morning Mr. X, it is a wonder that you are >still alive, according to our medical tests you are supposed to >have died two month ago" ... > >Nicole Suter Nicole, according to G de Purucker, and probably others, there is a physical karma acting on the physical plane, an astral karma acting on the astral plane, a mental karma acting on the mental plane, and so on. There is even a spiritual karma which acts on the spiritual plane. Doctors do not acknowledge the cosmic planes, let alone karma. But they do understand the importance of attitude and beliefs in the healing process. It is well known, for example, that doctors in white coats who have an air of expertise and infalibility have better healing records than doctors who dress in a business suit and who try to be friendly or who acknowlege their falibility (though personally I prefer the latter). Also, the placebo effect is well known, although little understood, in medical science. Obviously karma crosses the planes and mental karma (which steer our thought processes) can affect our body, and vice versa. It is all very complicated, and I suspect that only high Adepts can figure it all out. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:41:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <970910173852_692190697@emout10.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-10 15:43:44 EDT, you write: >Are you a member of the Addams Family? > >A. Safron > well, my family was something like that while I was growing up. And as Gerda's hair keeps growing she bears a remarkable resemblance to Cousin Itt. and I loved their playroom. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:44:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <970910174219_2051057131@emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-10 16:50:03 EDT, you write: >There may be more to it than that, Doss. In psychology, it is well >known that some people have a "victim mentality." If we all truly >communicate telepathically, then it just could be that a victim >sends out thoughts about wanting to die, and these are picked >up by a would-be mugger or murderer who is then subconsciously >drawn to the victim and commits the crime. Same could be true >with rape. It is a possibility worth considering, but whatever the >case, the karma is all the same, and the telepathy is more in the >nature of methodology. In each case, we have to ask "why" such >and such a person? Why that night? Why me? etc. I know whereof you speak, Jerry. The great love of my life has a similar problem and I have to work my psychic and psionic rear off protecting her from her own telepathic sendings. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:24:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: ghouls and yucky stuff Message-ID: <970910181331_1321760633@emout07.mail.aol.com> Ok folks, I'm gonna try to explain about ghouls here and if you have sensitive stomach I might suggest you hit the delete button now. We all know about psychic vampires. They can be voluntary or involuntary, but they basically feed off the energy of people. Usually the psychic vampire will feed off of people who are young, healthy and have an energy field to match, in order to increase their own vital energy and maybe acquire certain qualities they feel they lack (in the case of voluntary vampirism). Psychic ghouls are somewhat different. They feed off the energy of the sick and the dying. It is as though something in their system requires the energy of decay to keep running. The result is a human energy field that looks, well, very very unpleasant because it has acquired all of the tendencies of it's victims. Now, one would expect that such a person would not live long, that the disease patterns would manifest in the physical body, but for some reason this is almost never the case. They remain dormant in the energy field but rarely do anything else. In our extremely life-affirming culture, the idea of death is considered a perversion of nature and thus the very concept of a being that would feed of the energies that manifest as death approaches is hardly credible or comprehensible. Yet in other cultures such a thing is quite believable and extremely possible. The phenomenon reached its western peak in the death-affirming cultures of the late middle ages and the nineteenth century (Queen Victoria was a prime and obvious example) and many of the pre and post-death rituals of those periods (some of which still carry into our own more enlightened age) have less to do with mourning than with psychic feeding. The natural human reaction to such people is revulsion, hence the distaste one feels for undertakers or workers in nursing homes. There is something fundamentally unclean about many of them but we cannot put our fingers on precisely what it is. The psychic ghoul will automatically place himself in a position where he is near to the dying. This is an instinctive reaction, because unlike the psyhic vampire, there is no cultural glamor associated with the practice. It is rather an unconsciously felt need. However, as the ghoul progresses, he may become conscious of this need and his actions will become more deliberate. He will be aware that in the presence of the dying he is energized and consciously work to increase the intake of that energy. Such a person will want the dying to be as conscious of their death process as possible, so as to increase the amount of necrotic energy flowing from them, even to the point of denying medical care (one has to wonder how many of Mother Theresa's charges would have lived longer with a shot of antibiotics instead of prayers) and will consciously, or unconsciously find justification for such a denial, usually cloaking it in some psuedo-spiritual gobbledygook. In most cases, the only danger the ghoul presents to the healthy is a psychological one, the possibility of the revulsion becoming paranoia, but otherwise the healthy individual has no reason to either fear, or in our culture, even suspect the ghoul of being other than an individual with a decidedly unpleasant occupation. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:28:05 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <341702D5.7BF3@dmv.com> This message was received at 17:45, today the 10th, and it is the first that I have received since 20:58 on the 7th. Have I missed much? Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:33:47 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Webs, HTML & Wordperfect Message-ID: In message <199709102045.QAA14099@NetGSI.com>, Jerry Schueler writes >To do a really nice web page, >you still pretty much need to know the language (I know just enough >to be dangerous). I have used WordPerfect, but editing is done using Notepad! Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 02:29:38 GMT From: ejlight@earthlink.net (E. J.) Subject: Thought For Food Message-ID: <3423577e.4505051@mail.earthlink.net> "Those who wish to embody the Tao should embrace all things. To embrace all things means first that one holds no anger or resistance toward any idea or thing, living or dead, formed or formless. Acceptance is the very essence of the Tao. To embrace all things means also that one rids oneself of any concept of separation: male and female, self and other, life and death. Division is contrary to the nature of the Tao. Foregoing antagonism and separation, one enters into the harmonious oneness of all things." -- Lao Tzu The Hua Hu Ching - Lost Teachings of Lao Tzu ___ {o o} ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^oo0^(_)^0oo^^^^^^^^^^^^ "And where are the people, O Lord?" I said, "The earth below and the sky o'erhead, And the dead whom once I knew?" "That was a dream" God smiled and said, "A dream that seemed to be true, There were no people, living or dead, There was no earth and no sky o'erhead, There was only myself and you." Let There Be Light -- Always In All Ways, e.j. }^-^{ http://home.earthlink.net/~ejlight/index1.html "You who have the Light, what are you doing with it ?" From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:52:12 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: SD On Line Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970911125212.00e145d4@mail.eden.com> Finally the magnum opus of HPB is On-line (1st instalment). I am sure HPB (whereever she is now) (and the Real Authors) will be delighted to see it available for "Free" on the Internet. At a time when every publisher is trying pryout every penny out of the readers, TUP should be congratulated on their leadership in this endeavor. Here is the full msg I picked up from theos-world. mkr PS: All other publishers of Theosophical Publications may want to follow the lead of TUP. ------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:40:31 -0700 From: "MYTHOS" Subject: Theos-World SD Electronic Version now online (1st Book) New on TUP Online "The Secret Doctrine" by H. P. Blavatsky (1st installment) "Studies in Occult Philosophy" by G. de Purucker Theosophical University Press Online (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/) has uploaded the first installment of its electronic edition of "The Secret Doctrine" -- Volume 1, Book 1 (vol. 1 to page 300). The other 5 books which comprise the 2 volumes will be added as they are ready. This full-text version is verbatim with the facsimile edition of 1888, except for minor changes, such as those noted below, and the correction of obvious typographical errors such as dropped letters. In html, it retains page-breaks so that researchers can find material referred to by page in other sources. Differences from the print version include: removing all diacritical marks (for ease in searching); using multiple asterisks instead of daggers, etc., to mark footnotes; and transliterating Greek characters into Latin italics (Hebrew characters appear as pictures inserted in the text). Please send any comments or suggestions about formatting, errors, or other technical matters to theosnw@theosophy-nw.org. Also recently added to the TUP Online site is G. de Purucker's "Studies in Occult Philosophy," 760 print-pages of short articles, answers to questions, and remarks at study-groups on "The Secret Doctrine" and "The Mahatma Letters." Published posthumously, it covers a very wide range of topics, from technical theosophical teachings to human problems. It is particularly useful in conjunction with the on-site search engine. -- Sarah Belle Dougherty Scott J.Osterhage -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:31:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Way showers Message-ID: In message <199709101926.NAA01855@mailmx.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >SIDE NOTE: I find it interesting, though - many people automatically think >that since someone is so loved by "the masses," his/her message or works are >somehow lacking. If one is so loved by so many, they've got to be on the >wrong path. . .isn't the "path" supposed to be full of suffering and >self-denial. . .one isn't supposed to have a good time. . .one can't >possibly be a "Way-shower" if it seems they haven't, at least, missed a >meal. . . Which idea is bovine excrement ... OTOH, Diana *did* suffer - from Bulimia (*after* her marriage) which is an excruciating from of self-denial. There are more ways of suffering than physical poverty, and Diana did not promote the dogma of unlimited lack of birth control, which to the extent it is successful, produces a great many poor and physically suffering souls, who, in India, are reportedly sometimes sold for evil purposes. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 19:29:36 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Webs, HTML & Wordperfect Message-ID: <199709110030.UAA23847@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Jerry Schueler > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Webs, HTML & Wordperfect > Date: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 3:47 PM > > Doss, I use Wordperfect 8.0 to initially flesh out web pages. But it > has drawbacks when it comes to fine-tuning. So, after using Wordperfect > to get a broad-brush picture of a web site, I get the fine details using > plain > ol' HTML in my web designer program. To do a really nice web page, > you still pretty much need to know the language (I know just enough > to be dangerous). > Jerry, I know HTML and always say that cult committed suicide in California not because of flying saucers comin' to take them away, but because they made a living out of writing web pages. It is VERY stressful, at least for me. If you know enough to be dangerous, you are probably most dangerous to yourself. :-) A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 18:42:38 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Hey, Chuck Message-ID: <199709110142.SAA09812@palrel1.hp.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Titus wrote: >> Diana, on the other hand ... Let me don my "bullet proof and flame proof >> vest" .. She was a good woman, but no saint. It is right that she be >> honored, but the public response seemed quite out of proportion to me. >> Writing a check, meeting with dignitaries, or attending a banquet for a few >> hours, while spending many other hours in resorts, luxury hotels and BMW's >> is different from getting your fingers dirty and giving your *whole* life >> to a cause. > I believe you're overlooking the "symbolism" of Diana. It has been said > that most of the grief over Diana has been from women - I don't doubt this. > It's hard to explain - unlike Mother Theresa, who is hailed to have had none > (save Chuck) - it was Diana's "faults" and her overcoming of them, her > stumbles, her dumb choices, etc. . .that brings her closer to people's > hearts. > Most of us know we'll never be a "Mother Theresa," but Diana showed us that > we can still be compassionate, loving, able to laugh, to retain composure - > despite our faults. Many identified with Diana and projected their hopes and failures on her. For some, movie stars have also been carriers for such projections. It's just curious how timing and media combine to produce such figures. Time will tell how transforming Diana's death is for people affected. I personally find it more inspiring when someone starts with no privileges but who through fervor is able to overcome circumstance. But to each their own. > "Mother Theresa," kinda like Theosophy, hover just above "the masses." But, > it's people like Diana who know how to communicate to the general public who > end up getting more of the message out there. "Devotions to God" take many > forms, I think. Devotions do take many forms. Which forms do more for a person than others at a given stage of their life are sometimes difficult to predict. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 20:44:44 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <199709110244.UAA29795@mailmx.micron.net> Jerry wrote: >There may be more to it than that, Doss. In psychology, it is well >known that some people have a "victim mentality." If we all truly >communicate telepathically, then it just could be that a victim >sends out thoughts about wanting to die, and these are picked >up by a would-be mugger or murderer who is then subconsciously >drawn to the victim and commits the crime. Same could be true >with rape. It is a possibility worth considering, but whatever the >case, the karma is all the same, and the telepathy is more in the >nature of methodology. In each case, we have to ask "why" such >and such a person? Why that night? Why me? etc. Whoa! Jump back from this! Ok, so I guess JonBenet Ramsey wanted to be raped and killed - she just didn't know it? Didn't know she was sending out messages? Why do we "have to ask 'why' such and such a person?" - "Why that night?" - How can we possibly know what has gone on in a person's life to be able to judge why they were victims of crime? Oh, and believe me, a person who is a victim of a crime continually asks "Why me?" Your paragraph, Jerry, is to me, an example of how easy it is for the "karma theory" to get ugly. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:14:46 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Rules & Karma Message-ID: In message <199709100107.VAA03148@NetGSI.com>, Jerry Schueler writes >>I could not agree more. You bang your head on the wall it hurts - that's >>law. Motive doesn't come into it. This is more or les how I see "karma." >> >>Alan > >Alan, you are certainly right when you speak of physical karma. >Physical karma (i.e., cause & effect) cares not a wit for motive or >intent. I wouldn't think that karma on the emotional or astral plane >would care all that much either. > >Jerry S. >Member, TI My point exactly. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 23:48:10 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <341769FA.3D9E@sprynet.com> Tom Robertson wrote: > >How do you feel about the inclusion of gender equality in the basic goals > >statement of the Theosophical Society? > > Men are superior to women. Gender equality has no place in a society > that is devoted to truth. Are you saying that every man is superior to every woman? That most men are superior to most women? That you are superior to all women? What is "superior", anyway? Bart Lidofsky P.S. You say how the Mahatmas were upset about having to work with HPB, because she was a female. But note they couldn't find any males to work with who were better for the task than HPB. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 21:44:39 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Collective Soup Message-ID: <341784EA.32B8@withoutwalls.com> > Absolutely agree. Emerging from the collective soup is our big > developmental task right now. The basic idea, and this comes > from Ken Wilber, is that we begin in an unconscious collective, > emerge into an individuality, and then rise into a conscious > collective (Wilber's pre-trans and post-trans paradigm). Yeah, and the crucible for doing that is the personality. 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, 10 Sep 1997 21:55:57 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Common sense health care Message-ID: <341787E7.BAA@withoutwalls.com> > It is well known, for > example, that doctors in white coats who have an air of > expertise and infalibility have better healing records than > doctors who dress in a business suit and who try to be > friendly or who acknowlege their falibility It's important to put your faith in appropriate attire and the pretense of infallibility. Everyone knows that. 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, 11 Sep 1997 00:21:39 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: The Number 7 Message-ID: This reminds me of something. Does anyone know where "direction" originated? Have there always been six basic directions? i.e. n s w e up down? I imagine that there have. Just curious. Six directions from the point of origin, making seven also. --- Jaqi. Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > > > > The "Star of David" or hexagram of two interlaced triangles is a useful > > example. There are six points sharing a common seventh - the centre. > > That fits in with the concept of 6 + Unity, which makes a lot of sense > to me. > > Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:50:00 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) Message-ID: <199709111246.IAA28386@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Tom and his evil feminists (again) > Date: Wednesday, September 10, 1997 10:49 PM > > Bart Lidofsky > > P.S. You say how the Mahatmas were upset about having to work with HPB, > because she was a female. But note they couldn't find any males to work > with who were better for the task than HPB. Yeah, it's tough, Bart, when the drones just don't cut it. :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 07:52:12 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: SD On Line Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970911125212.00e145d4@mail.eden.com> Finally the magnum opus of HPB is On-line (1st instalment). I am sure HPB (whereever she is now) (and the Real Authors) will be delighted to see it available for "Free" on the Internet. At a time when every publisher is trying pryout every penny out of the readers, TUP should be congratulated on their leadership in this endeavor. Here is the full msg I picked up from theos-world. mkr PS: All other publishers of Theosophical Publications may want to follow the lead of TUP. ------------------------------------ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:40:31 -0700 From: "MYTHOS" Subject: Theos-World SD Electronic Version now online (1st Book) New on TUP Online "The Secret Doctrine" by H. P. Blavatsky (1st installment) "Studies in Occult Philosophy" by G. de Purucker Theosophical University Press Online (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/) has uploaded the first installment of its electronic edition of "The Secret Doctrine" -- Volume 1, Book 1 (vol. 1 to page 300). The other 5 books which comprise the 2 volumes will be added as they are ready. This full-text version is verbatim with the facsimile edition of 1888, except for minor changes, such as those noted below, and the correction of obvious typographical errors such as dropped letters. In html, it retains page-breaks so that researchers can find material referred to by page in other sources. Differences from the print version include: removing all diacritical marks (for ease in searching); using multiple asterisks instead of daggers, etc., to mark footnotes; and transliterating Greek characters into Latin italics (Hebrew characters appear as pictures inserted in the text). Please send any comments or suggestions about formatting, errors, or other technical matters to theosnw@theosophy-nw.org. Also recently added to the TUP Online site is G. de Purucker's "Studies in Occult Philosophy," 760 print-pages of short articles, answers to questions, and remarks at study-groups on "The Secret Doctrine" and "The Mahatma Letters." Published posthumously, it covers a very wide range of topics, from technical theosophical teachings to human problems. It is particularly useful in conjunction with the on-site search engine. -- Sarah Belle Dougherty Scott J.Osterhage From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:39:29 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Karma & Roules Message-ID: To mkr: I feel that no person is really getting killed. Just the body of the person is dead while the much more important rest of it is passing away. That passing away does not protect from problems at all, at least not at the beginning of such a "journey". How the left familiy is managing their situation also depends on what they do believe - in some countries they make joy-celebreations instead of furnerals because the feel so happy for the one passing out of duality, out of pain ... Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:09:53 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <341809C1.2B13@sprynet.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Why do we "have to ask 'why' such and such a person?" - "Why that night?" - > How can we possibly know what has gone on in a person's life to be able to > judge why they were victims of crime? Oh, and believe me, a person who is a > victim of a crime continually asks "Why me?" > > Your paragraph, Jerry, is to me, an example of how easy it is for the "karma > theory" to get ugly. The way out of this is simple. The fact that someone has karma coming to them does not confer the right to deliver the karma onto anybody else. A good example in religious literature is the lesson of Judas: Jesus was supposed to be crucified, yet Judas was still damned for betraying him. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:12:19 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: theos-l-digest 1235 Message-ID: To Jerry Schueler re: Rules & Karma: Thank you for your explanantions. Who is G de Purucker? When I finish the thinking of him then God must be karma. I simply seem to be too silly to understand this - sorry. I agree with cosmic laws (including chains). Did you notice the "placebo-effect" in the words of "good morning Mr. X, it is a wonder that you are still alive, according to our medical tests you are supposed to have died two month ago" ... does have? This really happened and the patient died two months later!! Of course cosmic laws crosses the planes but it is your job to win control over your thought processes as it also was your job as a child to win control over your body. To me, the rest sounds like the "question of guilt at the cross" or like these parts of the indish peoples who say "I sit still, I endure the pain, I can't change anything - its all due to karma". A way of lazyness which I never could stand at all. Why should only a high Adept be able to figure out what karma is - (if they are high Adepts they mightn't have any at all)? To Chuck the Heretic re: ghouls an yucky stuff This is very interesting what you write here! Least but not last I have something to "mediate" about! Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:55:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l-digest 1235 Message-ID: <970911115114_369832817@emout05.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-11 11:18:45 EDT, you write: >To Chuck the Heretic re: ghouls an yucky stuff > >This is very interesting what you write here! Least but not last I >have something to "mediate" about! > >Nicole Suter > Well, try not to meditate on the field of one of them. when I did I found myself kneeling before the porcelien god making offerings thereinto. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:06:10 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma & Roules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970911180610.01106354@mail.eden.com> At 09:52 AM 9/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >To mkr: I feel that no person is really getting killed. Just the body of >the person is dead while the much more important rest of it is passing >away. That passing away does not protect from problems at all, at least >not at the beginning of such a "journey". How the left familiy is managing >their situation also depends on what they do believe - in some countries >they make joy-celebreations instead of furnerals because the feel so happy >for the one passing out of duality, out of pain ... > >Nicole Suter > Of course when I posted the msg, I had in mind the loss of the physical body and the physical and emotional and financial effects of the loss on the many who are affected by them. >From a simplistic point of view, in majority of the cases, no matter what those left behind believe, after the dust settles down, in the longer run those left behind see the effects, mostly not pleasant ones, over a very long period of time. Of course there are exceptions. Just my thinking on the subject. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 12:43:00 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <34183BB3.90BAB80@micron.net> Lynn wrote: > I agree. However, the question is whether animals actually suffer. > They > indeed feel pain, a tremendous amount of pain. But one of the things > that > those of who taught natural childbirth classes often said--there's a > difference between pain and suffering. Suffering results from pain but > has > an added emotional component. So we may need to find out if, and if > so, how > much of an emotional component is attached to the pain that animals > experience. (Note, this is not at all an attempt to legitimize in any > way > inflicting pain on animals. :-)) There are many documented examples of animals responding in what seems like an emotional state. There is the famous documentary (on Discovery) of the elephant matriarch, who, against instinct and the possible welfare of her group, rescued and took in an abandoned baby elephant. In the end, it all worked out, but there was much talk about how her choice went against most human and scientific conceptions of animals. In the humane society where I work, I have seen healthy animals die of bereavement, I have seen animals comfort other animals who are sick or otherwise in need of comfort, I have seen animals meet and establish a bond that required them to be placed in homes together, I have seen displays of sheer joy, happiness, and knew one dog, who, when you told him a joke, would actually laugh (it was an amazing thing - 'course one could say he was only following human cues). Most people who share their lives with animals readily admit animals are chock full of emotions. So, do I believe that animals "suffer," that is suffer with an emotional component attached, yes, I do - I really couldn't be more sure of it. Sometimes, in all honesty, I wish I didn't believe that about animals - it makes reports of abandonment, abuse, separations, scientific experimentation, etc. . . all the more heart-wrenching. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:52:42 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Ugly Karma Message-ID: <199709112000.QAA01175@NetGSI.com> >Your paragraph, Jerry, is to me, an example of how easy it is for the >"karma theory" to get ugly. You are quite right, it does get ugly. Nevertheless, there is some truth to it. You have to realize that this theory has the underlying assumption of telepathic contact between all people in our life-wave. Also, the "victim mentality" is entirely unconscious--sometimes called subconscious or below the level of normal consciousness. The victim is not usually aware of their inner desires. But (and here is the real rub) he or she can be. As we progress in meditiation, we come to broaden our focus of consciousness so that much of what is normally unconscious is lying at the peripheral part of our awareness. This is often called intuition, and if we listen, we can often know consciously what is going on around us. This kind of intuitive knowledge can be used to avoid airplanes that intend to crash, for example. It can be used to avoid places where muggers lurk, and so on. We all have "victim mentality" to a degree just as we all have a life wish and a death wish (listen carefully, and you can hear them vying for power). But we are only victims so long as these things remain unconscious to us. In this way (which is, after all, a type of "magic") we can prod our karmic destiny into self- directed channels, rather than simply being blown around like a dry leaf in a high wind. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 15:58:14 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Directions Message-ID: <199709112023.QAA02304@NetGSI.com> >This reminds me of something. Does anyone know where "direction" >originated? Have there always been six basic directions? i.e. n s w e up >down? I imagine that there have. Just curious. Six directions from the >point of origin, making seven also. > >Jaqi. The number of directions depends on the number of dimensions in any particular universe. Ours has three dimensions, and so we get 6 basic directions (i.e., just as if we stand within a cube where each side of the cube represents a primary direction). Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:07:33 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <199709112023.QAA02313@NetGSI.com> > The way out of this is simple. The fact that someone has karma coming >to them does not confer the right to deliver the karma onto anybody >else. A good example in religious literature is the lesson of Judas: >Jesus was supposed to be crucified, yet Judas was still damned for >betraying him. > > Bart Lidofsky Bart, as you very well know, we give ourselves our own karma. So, that which is "coming to them" is only what they ask for. Also, you can only give karma to another if they willingly accept it. No exceptions. Judas accepted the karmic role given to him. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:15:05 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Rules & Karma Message-ID: <199709112023.QAA02318@NetGSI.com> > Who is G de Purucker? Nicole, Purucker was a Leader of the Pasadena TS and a very prolific writer. Most of his material is quite good, and well worth reading, IMHO. >Did you notice the "placebo-effect" in the words of "good morning >Mr. X, it is a wonder that you are still alive, according to our medical >tests you are supposed to have died two month ago" ... does have? >This really happened and the patient died two months later!! This kind of thing is well documented. As Buddha taught--we should always doubt. >Why should only a high Adept be able to figure out what karma is - >(if they are high Adepts they mightn't have any at all)? I suspect that even they haven't got it all figured out. Karma sounds childishly simply on the surface, but its depths are beyond our human minds to fathom. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 97 13:20:41 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: blaming the victim Message-ID: <199709112019.NAA12812@scv2.apple.com> >Your paragraph, Jerry, is to me, an example of how easy it is for the "karma >theory" to get ugly. I agree with Kym; this "blame the victim" model is ugly. It's an exagerration of the valid psychological observation that we are all actively creating our own personal universes, contrary to a sort of default illusion that the world is something that just happens to us. But this does not mean that we bear the responsibility for every act that happens to us. Blaming Ethiopian famine victims for the bad karma that led to such incarnations is the lowest that I've seen this sink, but it's often almost that appalling. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 97 13:31:11 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Blavatsky on the Internet Message-ID: <199709112030.NAA05912@scv4.apple.com> >Finally the magnum opus of HPB is On-line (1st instalment). I am sure HPB >(whereever she is now) (and the Real Authors) will be delighted to see it >available for "Free" on the Internet. This sounds great, and kudos are due to all involved. Text in electronic form is great for research purposes but it's not always easy to get it into that form. TUP has always kept the prices reasonable on SD when a lot of publishers would have charged a lot more, and this is a wonderful next step. Let's hope to see much more Blavatsky, Sinnett, Olcott and so forth on the net as they become available in the public domain. (Actually all of HPB is PD now; I'd have to check on some of the rest, but generally speaking anything before 1912 is definitely unenforceable.) What I would consider a wonderful research resource would be on-line copies of "Lucifer" and "The Theosophist", which I have had a hard time getting my little paws upon. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:29:42 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970911132942.00c023bc@pacbell.net> At 07:31 PM 9/9/97 -0400, Alan wrote: >Love is recognising that all of creation and its creatures are >interconnected. Each life is a single drop of water in an ocean of >being. Without the drops, no ocean. Without the ocean, no drops. How elegantly put!!!!!! I love that! Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:31:33 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: More on Karma Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970911133133.00c1b208@pacbell.net> At 10:53 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >In message <3.0.2.32.19970908220552.00b9cdc8@pacbell.net>, >techndex@pacbell.net writes >>Hi Jerry, >> >>I always enjoy conversing with you! I like the bodhisattva ideal too! Where >>can I apply? ;-D >> >>Lynn > >Send $500 for your *personal* certificate .... Ummm, do you take checks postdated to the next round? ;-D Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:36:09 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970911143609.00c1d4a0@pacbell.net> At 04:48 PM 9/10/97 -0400, Jerry wrote: >There may be more to it than that, Doss. In psychology, it is well >known that some people have a "victim mentality." If we all truly >communicate telepathically, then it just could be that a victim >sends out thoughts about wanting to die, and these are picked >up by a would-be mugger or murderer who is then subconsciously >drawn to the victim and commits the crime. Same could be true >with rape. It is a possibility worth considering, but whatever the >case, the karma is all the same, and the telepathy is more in the >nature of methodology. In each case, we have to ask "why" such >and such a person? Why that night? Why me? etc. Jerry, Ooookay! ;-D I used to work with Women Organized Against Rape. (No need to brace yourself for a feminist harangue... that's not coming, I promise. ;-D) Rather than the telepathy thing, though that could play a role, victimization tends to have to do with how a person is carrying themself. I'm not talking about the usual stereotype of a rape victim who is "walking suggestively" which is a bunch of crap anyway. Criminals subconsciously sense fear, physical weakness, or vulnerability. This is why the very act of taking self defense classes is a rape deterrent. This holds true for men as well. People who radiate an aura of strength, awareness of their surroundings, etc. are less likely to be violently victimized. The fact that you *know* that you can defend yourself itself sends criminals looking for another target. Criminals are just like any other predator. They avoid prey who are likely to put up too much of a fight and potentially harm them. I admit that this isn't a total explanation for who is victimized and who isn't, but the traditional psychological interpretation is IMHO a subtle form of blaming the victim who's already been severely traumatized by the crime. Sure, karma probably does play a role in some cases, however, in many case, I'm sure that it's an initiation of a karmic bond on the part of the attacker. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:03:23 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Hey,Chuck... Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970911140323.00c02fb4@pacbell.net> At 01:22 PM 9/10/97 -0400, Titus wrote: > >Diana, on the other hand ... Let me don my "bullet proof and flame proof vest" >.. She was a good woman, but no saint. It is right that she be honored, but >the public response seemed quite out of proportion to me. Titus, Usually I agree with you, but have to differ here. Well, not exactly differ, but ask you if you can prove that Diana was not a saint? Of course, this brings up the question of what *is* a "saint" which came to my mind when her brother said in his eulogy that she wasn't a saint, that she laughed until doubled over, etc. Could it be that you share with him a sort of plaster-of-Paris concept of sainthood? I'm not trying to canonize Diana, but IMHO she could have very well been a highly-evolved soul. I'm not speaking of Master (Mistress?) level necessarily, but a disciple quite a ways on the Path? It's hard to know without knowing far more details of her inner life. > Writing a check, >meeting with dignitaries, or attending a banquet for a few hours, while >spending many other hours in resorts, luxury hotels and BMW's is different >from getting your fingers dirty and giving your *whole* life to a cause. Now this is where I do have to differ. ;-D Diana was born to wealth and into the British aristocracy. Even saints need to relax, recreate, etc. So, it's not surprising that she did it within the milleau she was born to. Not speaking of Diana in particular, but an evolved soul could purposely retain the trappings of that milleau so as to remain connected with the powerful in order to do their work. (You tend to become ostracized from the aristocracy when you don't travel in their circles, I think.) As spiritually "noble" as it is to get ones fingers dirty, humanitarian causes require money and lots of it. Serving humanity requires meeting with dignitaries, writing checks, and attending fundraisers just as much as it requires pulling maggots out of wounds. Service, IMHO, is where you find it and where you can do your personal best to meet the need in the circumstances in which you find yourself. I don't think that we should get into diminishing one type of service in favor of another. It's all desperately needed. > >I am glad that so many people prayed at once during her service and welcome >reminders of charitable acts (not only the writing of a check), but where is >such devotion to God? What about other people who gave their *lives* to >a good cause? There are truly many unsung heroes. One small trend that I've noticed in the media in the past few years is features highlighting "average" people performing astounding acts of service in one way or another. ABC has their person of the week (I think that's what it's called), my local newspaper has plenty of such features, etc. I don't think that we can diminish Diana's acts of service to checkwriting (as important as that is in itself). In the many filmclips they've shown of her after her death, I noticed that she almost invariably spontaneously touched or held the unfortunate people she visited. This spoke to me of a spontaneous, deep compassion that was not at all studied or put on for the camera. She also risked her personal safety in going to areas containing land mines. (You've probably seen the clips of her wearing protective clothing, face shield, etc.) As a mother, she devoted herself to rearing her sons, nurturing the quality of compassion within them, well aware that William may one day sit on the throne and be in a powerful position to serve humanity. Where is such devotion to God? If God is every individual that we meet, the devotion to serving them is indeed devotion to God. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:19:12 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Hey, Chuck - Titus Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970911141912.00c1dda8@pacbell.net> At 03:26 PM 9/10/97 -0400, Kym wrote: >Most of us know we'll never be a "Mother Theresa," but Diana showed us that >we can still be compassionate, loving, able to laugh, to retain composure - >despite our faults. > > >SIDE NOTE: I find it interesting, though - many people automatically think >that since someone is so loved by "the masses," his/her message or works are >somehow lacking. If one is so loved by so many, they've got to be on the >wrong path. . .isn't the "path" supposed to be full of suffering and >self-denial. . .one isn't supposed to have a good time. . .one can't >possibly be a "Way-shower" if it seems they haven't, at least, missed a >meal. . . I agree with you wholeheartedly!!!! Why is this grim view of the Path so prevalent? I think it leads to distortions in the development of the vehicles and karmic binding to the very things folks are trying to avoid (substances such as alcohol, "wrong" foods, sex, etc.) Laughter (as long as it's not the hurtful type) is one of the most healing, unifying things there is. How love of God and humanity has become equated with grimness, self-inflicted suffering, etc. is beyond me. Perhaps its our Puritan heritage here in the U.S. And this thing of intentionally missing meals (unless one is fasting to meditate or for some other specific spiritual task), etc. is almost like a merit-badge kind of thing. And acquiring these "merit badges" become trappings with which the self becomes enthralled, leading to self-admiration (and hopefully that of others), further ensnaring oneself in maya, particularly the astral glamor. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to get that off of my chest. ;-D Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 14:52:42 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Yoga Olympics Message-ID: <199709112152.OAA14223@palrel1.hp.com> AP WIRE - Monk Gloats Over Yoga Championship "I am the serenest!" he says. LHASA, TIBET - Employing the brash style that first brought him to prominence, Sri Dhananjai Bikram won the fifth annual International Yogi Competition yesterday with a world-record point total of 873.6. "I am the serenest!" Bikram shouted to the estimated crowd of 20,000 yoga fans, vigorously pumping his fists. "No one is serener than Sri Dhananjai Bikram-I am the greatest monk of all time!" Bikram got off to a fast start at the Lhasa meet, which like most major competitions, is a six-event affair. In the first event, he attained total consciousness (TC) in just 2 minutes, 34 seconds, and set the tone for the rest of the meet by repeatedly shouting, "I'm blissful! You blissful?! I'm blissful!" to the other yogis. Bikram, 33, burst onto the international yoga scene with a gold-mandala performance at the 1994 Bhutan Invitational. At that competition he premiered his aggressive style, at one point in the flexibility event sticking his middle toes out at the other yogis. While no prohibition exists against such behavior, according to Yoga League Commissioner Swami Prabhupada, such behavior is generally considered "unBuddhalike." "I don't care what the critics say," Bikram said. "Sri Bikram is just gonna go out there and do Sri Bikram's own yoga thing." Before the Bhutan meet, Bikram had never placed better than fourth. Many said he had forsaken rigorous training for the celebrity status accorded by his Bhutan win, endorsing Nike's new line of prayer mats and supposedly dating the Hindu goddess Shakti. But his performance this week will regain for him the number one computer ranking and earn him new respect, as well as for his coach Mahananda Vasti, the controversial guru some have called Bikram's "guru." "My special training diet for Bikram of one super-charged, carbo-loaded grain of rice per day was essential to his win," Vasti said. The defeated Gupta denied that Bikram's taunting was a factor in his inability to attain TC. "I just wasn't myself today," Gupta commented. "I wasn't any self today. I was an egoless particle of the universal no-soul." In the second event, flexibility, Bikram maintained the lead by supporting himself on his index fingers for the entire 15 minutes while touching the back of his skull to his lower spine. The feat was matched by Gupta, who first used the position at the 1990 Tokyo Zen-Off. "That's my meditative position of spiritual ecstasy, not his," remarked Gupta. "He stole my thunder." Bikram denied the charge, saying, "Gupta's been talking like that ever since he was a 3rd century Egyptian slave-owner." Nevertheless, a strong showing by Gupta in the third event, the shotput, placed him within a lotus petal of the lead at the competition's halfway point. But event number four, the contemplation of unanswerable riddles known as koans, proved the key to victory for Bikram. The koan had long been thought the weak point of his spiritual arsenal, but his response to today's riddle-"Show me the face you had before you were born "-was reportedly "extremely illuminative," according to Commissioner Prabhupada. While koan answers are kept secret from the public for fear of exposing the uninitiated multitudes to the terror of universal truth, insiders claim his answer had Prabhupada and the two other judges "highly enlightened." With the event victory, Bikram built himself a nearly insurmountable lead, one he sustained through the yak-milk churn and breathing events to come away with the upset victory. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 13:01:21 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: SD On Line Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970911180121.012761b4@mail.eden.com> At 08:55 AM 9/11/97 -0400, ramadoss@eden.com wrote: >Finally the magnum opus of HPB is On-line (1st instalment). I am sure HPB >(whereever she is now) (and the Real Authors) will be delighted to see it >available for "Free" on the Internet. > >At a time when every publisher is trying pryout every penny out of the >readers, TUP should be congratulated on their leadership in this endeavor. >Here is the full msg I picked up from theos-world. > >mkr > >PS: All other publishers of Theosophical Publications may want to follow the >lead of TUP. > Several months ago, when I contacted another source (which I dont want to identify) which I believe had access to the ML on an electronic medium was silent to my suggestion about making it available in some form on the Internet. This was before TUP put it on the web. The source I was in contact was *not* TUP. I think the lack of responsiveness may have been conflict between the issue of sales of hard copy and free access on line. Now it is a moot point since TUP has put ML on-line some time ago. The above simply indicative of the way some view publication on the Internet. But the way things are going, it is a juggernaut which is unstoppable. All of us should be thankful for the labors of many who have helped to bring the Theosophical Classics on-line. MKR >From: "MYTHOS" >To: >Subject: Theos-World SD Electronic Version now online (1st Book) >Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 04:40:31 -0700 > >New on TUP Online >"The Secret Doctrine" by H. P. Blavatsky (1st installment) >"Studies in Occult Philosophy" by G. de Purucker > >Theosophical University Press Online (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/) >has uploaded the first installment of its electronic edition of "The Secret >Doctrine" -- Volume 1, Book 1 (vol. 1 to page 300). The other 5 books >which comprise the 2 volumes will be added as they are ready. This >full-text version is verbatim with the facsimile edition of 1888, except >for minor changes, such as those noted below, and the correction of obvious >typographical errors such as dropped letters. In html, it retains >page-breaks so that researchers can find material referred to by page in >other sources. Differences from the print version include: removing all >diacritical marks (for ease in searching); using multiple asterisks instead >of daggers, etc., to mark footnotes; and transliterating Greek characters >into Latin italics (Hebrew characters appear as pictures inserted in the >text). Please send any comments or suggestions about formatting, errors, >or other technical matters to theosnw@theosophy-nw.org. > >Also recently added to the TUP Online site is G. de Purucker's "Studies in >Occult Philosophy," 760 print-pages of short articles, answers to >questions, and remarks at study-groups on "The Secret Doctrine" and "The >Mahatma Letters." Published posthumously, it covers a very wide range of >topics, from technical theosophical teachings to human problems. It is >particularly useful in conjunction with the on-site search engine. -- Sarah >Belle Dougherty > >Scott J.Osterhage > >-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 19:36:54 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <34188095.76F1@sprynet.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > > Bart, as you very well know, we give ourselves our own karma. > So, that which is "coming to them" is only what they ask for. Also, > you can only give karma to another if they willingly accept it. > No exceptions. Judas accepted the karmic role given to him. So, you are saying that the Nazi's were only fulfilling their karmic duty during the Holocaust? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 19:41:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Yoga Olympics Message-ID: <970911193908_-565360670@emout14.mail.aol.com> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:21:51 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Morbid stuff Message-ID: <199709120021.RAA13218@palrel1.hp.com> Lynn (techndex@pacbell.net) wrote: > As spiritually "noble" as it is to get ones fingers dirty, humanitarian > causes require money and lots of it. Serving humanity requires meeting with > dignitaries, writing checks, and attending fundraisers just as much as it > requires pulling maggots out of wounds. Service, IMHO, is where you find it > and where you can do your personal best to meet the need in the > circumstances in which you find yourself. I don't think that we should get > into diminishing one type of service in favor of another. It's all > desperately needed. All these forms of service are necessary. If a person is doing their best I would not diminish the least effort. A child scratching the back of a dog with love is serving God - and his or her service is equal in the eyes of God to that of Mother Theresa's, because they both give their best. The only thing is if a person is capable of more selfless service than they actually give. In the case of Diana, I would *NOT* presume to make any such judgement. Perhaps I should not have compared Diana and Mother Theresa in any way. My point is better stated by talking about the degree of self service versus selfless service. The parable of the widow's mite comes to mind. Wealthy once-a-week worshippers cast in a great deal of money. To be sure, that money could probably have been used to do a great deal. The poor widow, on the other hand, cast in two mites, but was deemed by Jesus to have cast in "more". This is because those two mites were nearly her whole possessions and contained a great deal of love. Evidence of love is how much we are *prepared* to give. > I don't think that we can diminish Diana's acts of service to checkwriting > (as important as that is in itself). In the many filmclips they've shown of > her after her death, I noticed that she almost invariably spontaneously > touched or held the unfortunate people she visited ... [snip] To the degree that she offered more than just a corner of her being, these are noble and good. Again, I can't presume to know. I don't want to be a Diana knocker. > How love of God and humanity has become equated with grimness, > self-inflicted suffering, etc. is beyond me. And beyond me too. The key is how much we reserve for our little self and how much we give in the spirit of service. We do need to take care of our mental and physical health to be of use in the world. Eating well and recreation can be in service to God rather than for ourselves and they can be joyful. I'm not saying it is a sin to enjoy doing anything. "Sacrifice" has a morbid meaning to some because it is synonymous with forced, grudging giving. Giving can be the most joyful thing we do. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 21:07:38 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <341895DA.11A4@dmv.com> Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > > Bart, as you very well know, we give ourselves our own karma. > > So, that which is "coming to them" is only what they ask for. Also, > > you can only give karma to another if they willingly accept it. > > No exceptions. Judas accepted the karmic role given to him. > > So, you are saying that the Nazi's were only fulfilling their karmic > duty during the Holocaust? > > Bart Lidofsky Would anyone like to comment on B.F. Skinners deterministic model? For Skinner everything was physical and human beings were totaly controlled by their environment. People have no souls, so they themselves cannot be considered as part of their own environment. How does contemplation of self fit in Skinners model? Why is it that only computers can have virtue in our day? We need someone to point out that the most important, the most real, the most formative is the virtual. The ancients pointed to a substance of the virtual; "spirit", and Jesus went so far as to say that one must be born of this substance, to "come and go as the wind". For me 'virtual reality' is paramount, there is nothing beyond it; so deterministic models don't work; especially dualistic interpretations of Karma which simply propose moral reincarnation. The spark of wonderful insight that Karma embodies is the concept of process; something that ancient western philosophers ignored, being only concerned with truth and virtue. Truth, virtue, action; faith, hope, and charity; they are telling the same story! Has anyone ever considered what the substance of our sensations is? For me it is spirit experienced by the soul. Look at something that is blue, blue is the name for the seeing experience; what is the substance of blue? If you think it through you will find that there is nothing physical to point to that is your experience of blue. There are no physical sensations even though sensations can be physically induced. All is spirit! Although, not immediately obvious, translocation is the "way". Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:14:13 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: More on Karma Message-ID: <6GfPIPAldJG0EwvG@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <3.0.2.32.19970911133133.00c1b208@pacbell.net>, techndex@pacbell.net writes >At 10:53 PM 9/9/97 -0400, you wrote: >>In message <3.0.2.32.19970908220552.00b9cdc8@pacbell.net>, >>techndex@pacbell.net writes >>>Hi Jerry, >>> >>>I always enjoy conversing with you! I like the bodhisattva ideal too! Where >>>can I apply? ;-D >>> >>>Lynn >> >>Send $500 for your *personal* certificate .... > >Ummm, do you take checks postdated to the next round? ;-D > >Lynn Only if issued in the previous round. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:12:38 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <62XPEJAGcJG0EwMd@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <34183BB3.90BAB80@micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes > Most people who share >their lives with animals readily admit animals are chock full of >emotions. So, do I believe that animals "suffer," that is suffer with >an emotional component attached, yes, I do - I really couldn't be more >sure of it. > >Sometimes, in all honesty, I wish I didn't believe that about animals - >it makes reports of abandonment, abuse, separations, scientific >experimentation, etc. . . all the more heart-wrenching. Once again I agree 100%. Alan :-) and :-( From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:09:55 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: SD On Line Message-ID: <8m+OQHAjZJG0EwsS@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <2.2.32.19970911125212.00e145d4@mail.eden.com>, ramadoss@eden.com writes >Theosophical University Press Online (http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/) >has uploaded the first installment of its electronic edition of "The Secret >Doctrine" -- Volume 1, Book 1 (vol. 1 to page 300). The other 5 books >which comprise the 2 volumes will be added as they are ready. Click on "Classic Texts" on website below to get there ... Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:59:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <970911114904_-2102839949@emout18.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-11 11:12:40 EDT, you write: >Jesus was supposed to be crucified, yet Judas was still damned for >betraying him. > > Bart Lidofsky > But how do we know that Judas was really damned? There is no reason to believe the literature (being the work of frauds and liars like all founders of religions). Maybe Judas is actually among the truly blessed of the most high having taken a small but important part in ridding the world of someone truly weird. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:04:40 +0100 From: Douwe Boschma Subject: Karma? Message-ID: 1544.97 912@xs4all.nl I wonder why there are so many that take a oposition against creating karma... Why would you try to avoid karma? isn't it a great healer, isn't the sword of nemesis that leads you on the right path? I feel that avoiding karma by 'not acting' against your natural desires, tricks you into standing still, or natural desires will come out one day with vulcanic force... The path is recognition of the divine spark, and opening the eyes of your heart to it... for a periode there will be two desires in you, one directed to the divine (coming from the Divine Will) and one directed to the dull and desirous matter (coming from your will). In this sence there are two paths in you then... one waxing and one waning. the waxing one (in the all compasing radiation of the divine spark) will start to wane when you act after your own nature (creating karma) but, it will leave you in the darkness of your own nature, so that your desire for the Divine Light grows bigger then before. Like this you will be taken out of your darkness, by a darshan of the Divine Light, and you are less likely to fall back into the karmic ring of cause and effect. It is eazy to mis interpretate this, so that you might believe that you just need to have a 'absence' of karma before you die living, but it is just the other way around, you die living, ant then there will be 'absence' of karma. Fos as much it can be absent for a living being (Jesus stated, 'no one is rightious, and then absolutely no one', including him self. Having no such thing as a recognition of a divine spark, then it will be of importance that you keep your eyes open in your life, and keep disire for being saved out of the heavy burden of life alive. Avoiding stress of matter, is avoiding life, avoiding life, is avoiding getting sick of it, avoiding getting sick of life avoids the spark to have the space to radiate in the space of your heart because it is filled with useless dabblings, that are there to exhaust the spark. You will only gasp for air when you realize that you are drowning. In revelations 3-16 it sais something like: 'what I have against you is that you are lukewarm, you should have been hot or cold'. Stating that you can get pretty far by being lukewarm but that you will never be able to cross 'the border' this way. I hope that I express myself well, because I feel somewhat hindered in being clear by having to write in english (which is not my language). My sincere regards, Douwe. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:04:58 +0100 From: Douwe Boschma Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: 15545.97 912@xs4all.nl > Sometimes, in all honesty, I wish I didn't believe that about animals - > it makes reports of abandonment, abuse, separations, scientific > experimentation, etc. . . all the more heart-wrenching. > > Kym If you realize that animals only differ from humans because of their lack of a mental body, but that they do share all the other bodies with the humans, then it becomes clear that they have the same emotions as men, and that our only diference is intellect. Animals show affectons, dislike, fear, friedship, anger, etc, all the emotions that people find so human. Apart form anything... most animals are very sensitive to atmosphere and things that will happen. When you would state that animals don't feel, then it would be as much unreazonable to say that someone with a down-syndrome would have less feelings then a genious. (BTW even fish feel stress). I remember in the vilage where I grew up, that cows used to try to escape when they ahd to go to the butcher. And I have seen cows in tremendous fear when they where brought to the butcher. Apart from anything... they are our younger brothers, not meant to be experimented on, or to be eaten to my idea. And it is sad (unhuman) to see unjustice done to them. My best regards, Douwe. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:28:04 +0100 From: Douwe Boschma Subject: Diana Message-ID: 8561.97 912@xs4all.nl Has anyone tried to see Diana's life and death more as a symbol that tries to tell tomething to the world that doesn't see the real point of it? This maybe instead of seeing her as some saint? I believe that she was so popular because her life arroused an archetype in people, the life of a pretty princess, breacking away from static rule, the pure being chased by the impure, the death in a tunnel... etc... If you ever read Grimm in a symbolic way, then look at her life like that too, it teaches a lot about the world, and what people are looking for... You can fill in the many details of her life. This doesn't make her a teacher or a saint, but one of the pawns that we all are. Best regards, Douwe. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:56:37 +0100 From: Douwe Boschma Subject: Re: The Number 7 Message-ID: 6580.97 912@xs4all.nl > This reminds me of something. Does anyone know where "direction" > originated? Have there always been six basic directions? i.e. n s w e up > down? I imagine that there have. Just curious. Six directions from the > point of origin, making seven also. This reminds me of Kaballah, 6 is the world of space... north, east, south, west, up, down, which is filled by the 7th, giving it life. So 6 is dead matter, and 7 is the Spirit within matter. In Kabbalah they also say that there was a original point (No.7), and because there was a point there had to be a space where the point had to be in, so there where 6 directions around a center... Like this 7 is matter with life. But seven is also the cycle becaus 1+2+3+4+5+6+7=28 and the cycle of the moon takes about 28 days to make a month, proving once more that the 7th is a force that gives life to the universe. To prove this in an other way... In the center of 7 is 4 (123-4-567) the 4 elements are the focus of 7. 123=6 is empty space 567=18 is ChI (Hebrew for Life) 4 elements give it substance. Best regards, Douwe From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:00:30 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <199709121256.IAA13098@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims > Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 6:38 PM > > Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > > Bart, as you very well know, we give ourselves our own karma. > > So, that which is "coming to them" is only what they ask for. Also, > > you can only give karma to another if they willingly accept it. > > No exceptions. Judas accepted the karmic role given to him. > > So, you are saying that the Nazi's were only fulfilling their karmic > duty during the Holocaust? > Do you have a particular interest in WWII? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:56:23 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Morbid stuff Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970912065623.00b9a9fc@pacbell.net> Titus, So we *are* in agreement after all! ;-D Thanks for the very inspirational reply! Lynn At 08:22 PM 9/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >Lynn (techndex@pacbell.net) wrote: > >> As spiritually "noble" as it is to get ones fingers dirty, humanitarian >> causes require money and lots of it. Serving humanity requires meeting with >> dignitaries, writing checks, and attending fundraisers just as much as it >> requires pulling maggots out of wounds. Service, IMHO, is where you find it >> and where you can do your personal best to meet the need in the >> circumstances in which you find yourself. I don't think that we should get >> into diminishing one type of service in favor of another. It's all >> desperately needed. > >All these forms of service are necessary. If a person is doing their best I >would not diminish the least effort. A child scratching the back of a dog >with love is serving God - and his or her service is equal in the eyes of God >to that of Mother Theresa's, because they both give their best. The only >thing is if a person is capable of more selfless service than they actually >give. In the case of Diana, I would *NOT* presume to make any such judgement. > >Perhaps I should not have compared Diana and Mother Theresa in any way. My >point is better stated by talking about the degree of self service versus >selfless service. > >The parable of the widow's mite comes to mind. Wealthy once-a-week >worshippers cast in a great deal of money. To be sure, that money could >probably have been used to do a great deal. The poor widow, on the other >hand, cast in two mites, but was deemed by Jesus to have cast in "more". This >is because those two mites were nearly her whole possessions and contained a >great deal of love. Evidence of love is how much we are *prepared* to give. > >> I don't think that we can diminish Diana's acts of service to checkwriting >> (as important as that is in itself). In the many filmclips they've shown of >> her after her death, I noticed that she almost invariably spontaneously >> touched or held the unfortunate people she visited ... > >[snip] > >To the degree that she offered more than just a corner of her being, these are >noble and good. Again, I can't presume to know. I don't want to be a Diana >knocker. > >> How love of God and humanity has become equated with grimness, >> self-inflicted suffering, etc. is beyond me. > >And beyond me too. The key is how much we reserve for our little self and how >much we give in the spirit of service. We do need to take care of our mental >and physical health to be of use in the world. Eating well and recreation can >be in service to God rather than for ourselves and they can be joyful. I'm >not saying it is a sin to enjoy doing anything. "Sacrifice" has a morbid >meaning to some because it is synonymous with forced, grudging giving. Giving >can be the most joyful thing we do. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:34:58 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Karma? Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970912073458.00bbba04@pacbell.net> At 07:13 AM 9/12/97 -0400, Douwe wrote: >I wonder why there are so many that take a oposition against creating karma... >Why would you try to avoid karma? isn't it a great healer, isn't >the sword of nemesis that leads you on the right path? >I feel that avoiding karma by 'not acting' against your natural desires, >tricks you into standing still, or natural desires will come out one >day with vulcanic force... Hi Douwe, The reason I personally try to avoid creating karma is that it ties one to the wheel of rebirth, which is quite different by the way than reincarnating by choice to serve humanity. In other words, it delays ones evolution after a certain point. It is the great teacher, and we couldn't have evolved to where we are without it, but when one is aspiring to tread the Path, I believe that it is necessary to start breaking the karmic chains. Even so-called "good" karma is binding because we're forced to reincarnate for it to play out. I guess it could be looked at as potential energy that must be expended. Or as a field of energy that must be transcended. Acting without creating karma isn't the suppression of desire. I agree with you that suppressing ones desires inhibits ones progress. One becomes linked to the inhibited desires just as inexorably as if they give full rein to them. Instead it is cultivating the absence of desire or detachment from it. I think it's more along the lines of recognizing that one has a desire, standing back from it and deciding whether to act upon it but for the right reasons. I think it is critical to acknowledge the existence of the desire before one can become detached from it. I also think that it's important to realize that one is *not* ones desires, that they are not part of the True Self. > >The path is recognition of the divine spark, and opening the eyes of >your heart to it... for a periode there will be two desires in you, >one directed to the divine (coming from the Divine Will) and one directed to the dull >and desirous matter (coming from your will). I agree. It's a critical point where you intuit the existence of the divine spark within you and consciously decide to move toward it. The difficulty is that the lower ego is so powerful, that we need to ask ourselves why we have the desire to move toward the divine spark and struggle to transcend even that desire. I think a careful examination of oneself will often lead to the realization that one has selfish reasons for even setting foot on the Path. But fortunately the lower ego is not alone in this struggle as it is the Higher Self, I believe, that wrestles with the lower self to gain control. >In this sence there are two paths in you then... one waxing and >one waning. the waxing one (in the all compasing radiation of the divine >spark) will start to wane when you act after your own nature (creating karma) >but, it will leave you in the darkness of your own nature, so that >your desire for the Divine Light grows bigger then before. >Like this you will be taken out of your darkness, by a darshan of >the Divine Light, and you are less likely to fall back into the karmic ring >of cause and effect. I agree. Actually, I think we're almost on the same wavelength. I believe as we struggle into a larger measure of the Divine Light, we eventually transcend the astral, the realm of desire, for the Divine Light is not found there. BTW, what is a "darshan"? It sounds like a Sanskrit word, but is a new one to me. :-) >It is eazy to mis interpretate this, so that you might believe that >you just need to have a 'absence' of karma before you die living, but >it is just the other way around, you die living, ant then there will >be 'absence' of karma. Fascinating. Could you explain this a bit more? >Fos as much it can be absent for a living being (Jesus stated, 'no >one is rightious, and then absolutely no one', including him self. > >Having no such thing as a recognition of a divine spark, then it >will be of importance that you keep your eyes open in your life, and >keep disire for being saved out of the heavy burden of life alive. >Avoiding stress of matter, is avoiding life, >avoiding life, is avoiding getting sick of it, >avoiding getting sick of life avoids the spark to have the space to radiate >in the space of your heart because it is filled with useless dabblings, >that are there to exhaust the spark. I agree that avoiding life is definitely not the path to freedom or true Self-realization. The path to it leads directly through matter as the Divine descended into matter for the purpose of gaining mastery over it (eating of the Tree of Knowlege, the Fall, etc. which has be terribly misinterpreted). > >You will only gasp for air when you realize that you are drowning. I like that!!!! > >In revelations 3-16 it sais something like: 'what I have against you is that >you are lukewarm, you should have been hot or cold'. >Stating that you can get pretty far by being lukewarm but that you >will never be able to cross 'the border' this way. I don't interpret the absence of desire as at all being lukewarm. The key is transmuting desire (which is astral-based) into its higher correspondence (which is buddhic, if I remember correctly). > >I hope that I express myself well, because I feel somewhat hindered in being >clear by having to write in english (which is not my language). You expressed yourself beautifully. When I asked you to explain something further it was because of the subtlty of the concept, not a lack of mastery over English. Lynn From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 06:54:28 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970912065428.0077dde8@pacbell.net> Kym, You (and others who responded) are right. Animals *do* have emotions. I simply don't know where my head was at when I wrote what I wrote. Perhaps a case of engaging fingers before the brain was in gear. ;-D Lynn At 02:44 PM 9/11/97 -0400, you wrote: >Lynn wrote: > >> I agree. However, the question is whether animals actually suffer. >> They >> indeed feel pain, a tremendous amount of pain. But one of the things >> that >> those of who taught natural childbirth classes often said--there's a >> difference between pain and suffering. Suffering results from pain but >> has >> an added emotional component. So we may need to find out if, and if >> so, how >> much of an emotional component is attached to the pain that animals >> experience. (Note, this is not at all an attempt to legitimize in any >> way >> inflicting pain on animals. :-)) > >There are many documented examples of animals responding in what seems >like an emotional state. There is the famous documentary (on Discovery) >of the elephant matriarch, who, against instinct and the possible >welfare of her group, rescued and took in an abandoned baby elephant. >In the end, it all worked out, but there was much talk about how her >choice went against most human and scientific conceptions of animals. >In the humane society where I work, I have seen healthy animals die of >bereavement, I have seen animals comfort other animals who are sick or >otherwise in need of comfort, I have seen animals meet and establish a >bond that required them to be placed in homes together, I have seen >displays of sheer joy, happiness, and knew one dog, who, when you told >him a joke, would actually laugh (it was an amazing thing - 'course one >could say he was only following human cues). Most people who share >their lives with animals readily admit animals are chock full of >emotions. So, do I believe that animals "suffer," that is suffer with >an emotional component attached, yes, I do - I really couldn't be more >sure of it. > >Sometimes, in all honesty, I wish I didn't believe that about animals - >it makes reports of abandonment, abuse, separations, scientific >experimentation, etc. . . all the more heart-wrenching. > >Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 11:03:54 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Diana dream Message-ID: <199709121503.LAA18869@leo.vsla.edu> Like many people lately, I had a dream about Diana. Being out of practice at remembering them, all I recall is the end: there was a wide, long, parklike, beautiful stretch in the middle of a city. Rather like the Washington Mall or the Champs Elysee, it was named after Diana. My only interpretation is that she has become a landmark figure and someone who has opened up a place of beauty in the collective mind of humanity. Douwe is right, I think, in emphasizing that there is far more than an individual's death involved here, and that there is something numinous and holy about Diana now because of archetypal images which she somehow fits better than anyone of our time. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:40:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Diana Message-ID: <970912133653_87388452@emout02.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-12 09:18:06 EDT, you write: >Has anyone tried to see Diana's life and death more as a symbol that >tries to tell tomething to the world that doesn't see the real point of >it? >This maybe instead of seeing her as some saint? > My father always said that the only difference between a saint and an idiot was that the saint had a press agent. Diana was certainly proof of the truth of that statement. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:42:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Diana dream Message-ID: <970912134123_-197883228@emout20.mail.aol.com> Does anyone out there have an idea how a thoughtform works?!?!?!?!?!? Turn off the television and use some of the stuff you're supposed to know! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:12:29 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970912201229.00fef524@mail.eden.com> At 07:14 AM 9/12/97 -0400, Douwe Boschma wrote: >Apart from anything... they are our younger brothers, not meant to >be experimented on, or to be eaten to my idea. I have a simple philosophy. All are my friends. I don't eat my friends. May be I will be flamed. So mote it be. ........doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:22:16 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <3419B288.4916@sprynet.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-09-11 11:12:40 EDT, you write: > > >Jesus was supposed to be crucified, yet Judas was still damned for > >betraying him. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > > > But how do we know that Judas was really damned? There is no reason to > believe the literature (being the work of frauds and liars like all founders > of religions). Maybe Judas is actually among the truly blessed of the most > high having taken a small but important part in ridding the world of someone > truly weird. All kidding aside, I am, of course, referring to the lessons of the literature, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 17:30:34 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <3419B47A.65FA@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > > ---------- > > From: Bart Lidofsky > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims > > Date: Thursday, September 11, 1997 6:38 PM > > > > Jerry Schueler wrote: > > > > > > Bart, as you very well know, we give ourselves our own karma. > > > So, that which is "coming to them" is only what they ask for. Also, > > > you can only give karma to another if they willingly accept it. > > > No exceptions. Judas accepted the karmic role given to him. > > > > So, you are saying that the Nazi's were only fulfilling their karmic > > duty during the Holocaust? > > > Do you have a particular interest in WWII? The Nazi's make a particularly useful icon of evil. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 18:26:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <970912182602_811176439@emout01.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-12 17:58:07 EDT, you write: > > All kidding aside, I am, of course, referring to the lessons of the >literature, whether it is fiction or non-fiction. > > Bart Lidofsky > I'm not really kidding either. I think that Judas did humanity a service but unfortunately it backfired. As far as being damned by the literature, hell, everyone who accomplishes something has to deal with critics. You go through life, doing what seems best at the time, given the information available and if it works, great. If it doesn't, well these things happen. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:00:49 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: <199709130022.UAA29095@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: techndex@pacbell.net > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma & Rules > Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 9:46 AM > > Kym, > > You (and others who responded) are right. Animals *do* have emotions. I > simply don't know where my head was at when I wrote what I wrote. Perhaps a > case of engaging fingers before the brain was in gear. ;-D > My one male cat was hit by a car and died. There was another black longhair female that always buddied around with this cat. The next day I came home with the female standing in the attic window making terrible sad meows. She knew he was gone. Later you could tell by the look on her face, as she sat on my lap. But now she's an independent cat and goes her own way. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:33:02 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims Message-ID: <199709130026.UAA00209@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Criminals & Victims > Date: Friday, September 12, 1997 4:35 PM > > The Nazi's make a particularly useful icon of evil. > > Bart Lidofsky Hogan's Heroe's? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:45:31 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <199709130200.WAA26785@NetGSI.com> >I wonder why there are so many that take a oposition against creating karma... >Why would you try to avoid karma? isn't it a great healer, isn't >the sword of nemesis that leads you on the right path? >I feel that avoiding karma by 'not acting' against your natural desires, >tricks you into standing still, or natural desires will come out one >day with vulcanic force... I suspect that the only people who really want to eliminate karma are those who are simply tired of manifesting. HPB rightly says that any failure to act has its own karma. So, no matter whether we act or don't act, we still produce more karma. Only by eliminating all desire and attachment to life can we act without karma, and even that has its problems (for those familiar to magick, the City of the Pyramids in VTA, the 14th Aethyr, comes to mind). I also suspect that "the sword of nemesis" will lead "on the right path" only those folks who practice karma yoga. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 21:34:01 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Behaviorialism Message-ID: <199709130200.WAA26782@NetGSI.com> >Would anyone like to comment on B.F. Skinners deterministic model? For >Skinner everything was physical and human beings were totaly controlled >by their environment. People have no souls, so they themselves cannot be >considered as part of their own environment. How does contemplation of >self fit in Skinners model? Why is it that only computers can have >virtue in our day? Interestingly, Skinner's behavioral model of psychology is no longer in favor. Many of his techniques are still in use, but as you say, his determinism has been discovered to simply not be so. You won't find behaviorism recommended today, but rather what is called cognitive-behaviorialism, which inlcludes the mind. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:18:18 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Member of TI Message-ID: In message , Nicole Suter writes > THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Nicole Suter! Individual welcomes to: suter@igt.baum.ethz.ch Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:25:01 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma? Message-ID: <199709130325.UAA15054@palrel1.hp.com> Douwe Boschma wrote: > I wonder why there are so many that take a oposition against creating karma... > Why would you try to avoid karma? isn't it a great healer, isn't > the sword of nemesis that leads you on the right path? > I feel that avoiding karma by 'not acting' against your natural desires, > tricks you into standing still, or natural desires will come out one > day with vulcanic force... I think I know what you are getting at, and agree with it. But there are some provisos ... We have pairs of desires. For every desire there is (however well hidden) a desire to oppose it. It is similar to how our muscles come in pairs to allow controlled and useful movements. Abandoning oneself to the impulse of one desire is like operating with only one pair of muscles - you are ill adapted to the tasks of life. For example, with Scorpio rising, I am glad that I don't uncritically act out an impulse for revenge. I also have a desire to let healing happen. Creatively using my two desires for forced *and* for organic change is a much more adaptive stance. We need a "watcher" to choreograph the two poles of our desires in the dance of life. This doesn't have to mean you "stand still." > Avoiding stress of matter, is avoiding life, > avoiding life, is avoiding getting sick of it, > avoiding getting sick of life avoids the spark to have the space to radiate > in the space of your heart because it is filled with useless dabblings, > that are there to exhaust the spark. If you mean that trying to avoid bad karma is removing yourself from testing the laws of the universe and thereby learning them from trial and error, I partially agree. But I think you can accelerate your learning by exercising *JUDICIOUS* trial and error. Use that heuristic intuition to minimize bad karma. > In revelations 3-16 it says something like: 'what I have against you is that > you are lukewarm, you should have been hot or cold'. > Stating that you can get pretty far by being lukewarm but that you > will never be able to cross 'the border' this way. I agree with you more than my "yes, but's" seem to show. Lukewarm = Tamas = no choice Hot and Cold = Rajas = one-sided choice Crossing the border = Sattva = a "third" choice, effortless effort A tamas person never gets there. A rajas one gets there but with a lot of unnecessary suffering. A sattvic one gets there with only necessary suffering. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:36:38 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Rucha Message-ID: In message <341895DA.11A4@dmv.com>, Vincent Beall writes >All is spirit! Agreed! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 22:41:46 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Skinnerian behaviorism Message-ID: <199709130540.WAA11802@scv1.apple.com> >Would anyone like to comment on B.F. Skinners deterministic model? For >Skinner everything was physical and human beings were totaly controlled >by their environment. Skinner would have rejected those statements as too philosophical and not subject to empirical measurement, at least within the scope of his behavioral science (as opposed to the two well-known popular books he wrote -- many people get these personal musings and speculations confused with behaviorism). People think of behaviorism as some sort of malevolent soul-crushing force but it would be more correct to classify it with positivist and formalist movements in mathematics and the sciences. It does suffer from their limitations but it is not some ravening attempt to eradicate the soul. If the soul could be measured, behaviorism would be happy to engage it as a subject; otherwise it says it is outside its scope as a science. >People have no souls, so they themselves cannot be >considered as part of their own environment. This is far outside the behaviorist scope -- it's metaphysical, and not a part or corollary of the science of Skinner, Watson, Pavlov, what have you. >How does contemplation of self fit in Skinners model? In a biographical article a few years ago in one of the freethinking magazines (I think Skeptical Inquirer but possibly Free Inquiry) he described his regular morning practice of a kind of meditation he identified as Zen. The most advanced form of behavioral modification in his system is known technically as "self-control." >Why is it that only computers can have virtue in our day? Well, I'd love to discuss Skinner but I don't know what most of this has to do with him.... -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 03:15:29 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: Skinnerian behaviorism Message-ID: <341A3D91.72B@dmv.com> Tim Maroney wrote: > > Well, I'd love to discuss Skinner but I don't know what most of this has > to do with him.... > Perhaps I am very much mistaken about Skinner, but didn't his work demonstrate the we are totaly controlled by our environmet? And, I also believe that he had stated that we have no free will. Are you saying that these ontological remarks were just musings and not confirmed results of his research? Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 11:05:13 +0100 From: Douwe Boschma Subject: Re: Karma & Rules Message-ID: 7461.97 913@xs4all.nl Dear Lynn I don't have much time to write, because I will fly to Greece in a couple of hours, so that I still have to arrange some of my things at home. But still I'd like to answer your question very quickly. You asked what Darshan meant... Darshan is a impression of Buddha. One would feel Darshan after having been in His Radiation, you could compare it a bit to being touched by the Spiritus Sanctum. In this Radiation you will be able to recognize the Original state of being, it is as if you are taken up in Pleroma for a while, from which you can come to different conclusions concerning your life. It is an overshadowing of Divine radiation, that makes the seed in your heart, 'the spark', resonate accordingly, so that the divine 'rose' may envelope from it and spread its golden scent trough your blood, so that you will change accordingly. It is as being Baptized with the holy ghost. Something like this happened to Paul on his way to Damascus, and you may read about this when you study the lifes of people likeBoehme, for instance. >>It is eazy to mis interpretate this, so that you might believe that >>you just need to have a 'absence' of karma before you die living, but >>it is just the other way around, you die living, ant then there will >>be 'absence' of karma. > >Fascinating. Could you explain this a bit more? This being touched by the Holy Ghost, will take you up in a different sphere, which is not of this world. When your divine spark will ignite up accordingly, you will feel the radiation of 'the other', being present in your blood, and so in your whole system. Living from this, you will be able to be focussed on it all the time, in whatever you do, and your actions will start to alter accordingly. In this sence you will not act from your own desires and your own will anymore, but from a original way of being, so that you will by complete selflessness have less friction with this world, and create less karma accordingly. Like this you have died towards this nature, because you will fundamentally be of the other nature, and being of the Other Nature you will not cause much karma anymore. The other way around you will always create karma (as someone else on the list commented rightly), you try to 'be not', but still you are, because you cannot stop your will from willing with your will. For as long as you are part of this nature you will create karma, even when you don't want to create karma. Like this you end up in a endless cycle. You may try to have less karma (which you can do successfully to some extent) but you will never be able to be without karma, because you are still rooted in this nature (connect yourself to your higher self), and not in the Other One. So to come back to the answer of the question: Abcense of karma in this life is impossible, you first will have to find the Other Life trough the Spark of Divine heritage before you will be able to turn yourself away from this world and its karmic bond. I would have liked to be a bit more precise, but time is hunting me, I have to pack some bags within 15 minutes from now, before I go to Greece. My best regards, Douwe From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 01:40:36 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Cats Message-ID: <67ZYFeAEEeG0Ew8y@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199709130022.UAA29095@mcfeely.concentric.net>, "A. Safron" writes >My one male cat was hit by a car and died. There was another >black longhair female that always buddied around with this cat. >The next day I came home with the female standing in the attic >window making terrible sad meows. She knew he was gone. >Later you could tell by the look on her face, as she sat on my lap. >But now she's an independent cat and goes her own way. > I once had a cat (called "Yetzirah" or "Yetzi-puss" for short) who died age nine from cat 'flu. Her son ("Pip") kept lookng at her (we didn't see her) for about three days. He also coveted her favorite chair, but every time he tried to get on it he looked round with a startled look and changed his mind. One day he looked round, showed surprise, and claimed the chair. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 13 Sep 97 19:59:20 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: Skinnerian behaviorism Message-ID: <199709140258.TAA28562@scv3.apple.com> >Perhaps I am very much mistaken about Skinner, but didn't his work >demonstrate the we are totaly controlled by our environmet? And, I also >believe that he had stated that we have no free will. Are you saying >that these ontological remarks were just musings and not confirmed >results of his research? That's pretty much it, and I'm also pointing out that he had a personal mystical interest in meditation (at least late in his life) that to me would tend to cast the "dogmatic materialist" model into doubt. Remember that there are Eastern traditions that also deny the reality of thought. I have not actually read Skinner's popular books but I have heard a number of summaries of their contents. In my psychology education I studied only the science of behaviorism and it seems quite different. His contributions to philosophy and political science have not interested me enough to read them, but I do think the methodology of behaviorism has led to some very good science and to significant advances in our understanding of humans and other animals. Where Skinner was really wrong was in thinking that the inner life necessarily remains beyond the scope of scientific measurement and the field went through this paradigm shift when the cognitive methodologies came to the forefront in the 1960's and 1970's. The cognitive revolution has been a good thing as well, though some its metaphors often get strained or are tied too closely to the contemporary state of computer science. (The thing about mental imagery not being accepted as a cognitive model before most computers got bit-mapped displays was especially embarassing.) Biological psychology has also made tremendous advances inward in the last few decades and it's remarkable how well the nervous system's specialized functions are being localized today. I do not see these developments as being in conflict with mysticism; in many ways it is mysticism undergoing a phase shift into a science. Yoga is widely studied with modern methods and there are dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals showing its effects under controlled experimental conditions, for instance. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:31:59 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Re: Bart's "Judas" comment in Digest 1236 Message-ID: <970914113158_484329781@emout04.mail.aol.com> Bart's statement about Judas being criticized for betraying Christ is well put. According to scripture Jesus predicted his own demise as a result of betrayal and even went so far as to demand it: "That thou doest, do quickly." [Joh 13:27 NKJV]. Hence the paradox (primarily for Fundamentalist Christians) of condemning someone for doing exactly what God told him to do. Just one more example of why it is so important for them to simply . For when careful Biblical analyses and logic are applied to some of the scriptures serious problems arise. Namaste - Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:38:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: anyone home? Message-ID: <970914113835_-264705233@emout14.mail.aol.com> Gad, the list has been dead. Or is it not working? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:41:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Bart's "Judas" comment in Digest 1236 Message-ID: <970914114154_535777969@emout10.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-14 11:33:09 EDT, you write: > For when careful >Biblical analyses and logic are applied to some of the scriptures serious >problems arise. Namaste - Dennis Serious problems like that arise with the scriptures of every religion. When you attempt to impose reason on religion you get very odd results because religion is inherintly unreasonable. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 12:18:40 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <341C0E60.40A9@globalserve.net> Hi Douwe: Hope you had a good time in Greece. You wrote: > Abcense of karma in this life is impossible, you first will have to find > the Other Life trough the Spark of Divine heritage before you will be able to turn yourself away from this > world and its karmic bond. My discoveries so far: In the time before (chronologically) the concepts and precepts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and Christianity (et al) became popular as a vehicle for "finding the way to understanding everything", the pagans had one universal law (for this life and any other plane of existence): "Harm None". The major difference between pre and post Hindu thought seems to be that "the journey of life" is what counts for the pagan and total involvement in all aspects of the journey means the individual is fully involved in the process, which process is the same for all of creation: to reach the end of the journey and a state in which the individual (being) knows the mystery (divinity) within. Far from being unwilling pawns in a set of greater cycles (4.32 million human years each to the Hindus), ancient peoples not only understood the concept and place in creation of what the peoples (formed from the synthesis of the Aryan and Indian tribes) called "karma", they understood it so well that they were able to "manipulate" it, hence "magic". The striving of these people was to "turn to the Spirit of the Journey" and make connection with it so that it could guide and counsel them. If one uses the terminology "karma", as far as we can tell, there were three main spirit helpers: the spirit of the journey - the stream of being (soul essence) of accumulated experience of previous lives "carrying" personal karma; the spirit of the ancestors carrying family karma, and the spirit of the tribe carrying racial karma. Although many concepts have been (vastly) expanded (and even diluted) in the few thousand years of written knowlege, the concept of karma appears to remain pretty much constant. It simply means deed or action. Our way of explaining the "mechanism" of the natural law. I.e. how and why we act governs the results of our actions. Perhaps the struggle to define the parameters of this law are the actions of a people with too much time on their hands, having lost the connection to Spirit. It is not difficult to follow the thread of this concept (karma)and perceive the stops along the way in the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Daoists, and the later organized religions, and (dare I say it) theopsophists. It is also not too difficult to follow this same concept in the doctrines of science, psychology, psychiatry,and medicine. Thank you for your comments. They helped me to synthesize some of my scattered thoughts in the moment. I have set myself a task currently of wrapping my mind around two thoughts: "What is the benefit to the people (myself, for I am all the people and all the people are in me) of having an explanation to the mystery and a guide on the path, that expresses it in hundreds of concepts and words rather than one thought (phrase, essay)", and "Why have a goal of freedom (unattachment, alleviation of suffering)from anything to obtain release from life"? Ancilliary questions I hope to answer include, why are we punishing ouselves with "death" when there is no need to, and why do we constantly restrain ourselves in these bodies when we are quite capable of flying free of them? I suspect the answer to most of these questions is "fear". If so, next step: Understand fear and in so doing deny it it's existence? In other words, what's the big deal about reaching nirvana, when I know instinctively that I was born with it and only have to ignore the human chaos around me and act from the never ending goodness within to experience bliss every moment? Cheers. Annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 08:44:25 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: anyone home? Message-ID: We've been talking about you behind your ACK... --- Jaqi. On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > Gad, the list has been dead. > > Or is it not working? > > Chuck the Heretic > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 16:29:23 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: anyone home? Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970914212923.01294330@mail.eden.com> At 11:39 AM 9/14/97 -0400, you wrote: >Gad, the list has been dead. > >Or is it not working? > >Chuck the Heretic > Which list? theos-l? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 16:29:25 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970914212925.011e899c@mail.eden.com> At 12:18 PM 9/14/97 -0400, you wrote: > >In other words, what's the big deal about reaching nirvana, when I know >instinctively that I was born with it and only have to ignore the human >chaos around me and act from the never ending goodness within to >experience bliss every moment? >Cheers. Annette. > What do I do after I reach nirvana? I am quite happy that I have something to do every minute of my day, and my life is not dull at all and enjoy every minute of it? .....doss/mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 16:52:23 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: An interesting msg Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970914215223.01214354@mail.eden.com> Here is a msg I sent to Manjula. mkr ----------------------------------------- Is the representative from Theosophical Society (Adyar)? Do you know the name of the speaker On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 13:11:54 +0000, Manjula wrote: >At the Anagariaka Dharamapala Day celebrations, a representative from >the International Theosophical Society will speak on "Historical >Influence of Theosophical Society on Sri Lankan Buddhism." > >Date & Time: Saturday, 20th September, 1997 - 1 PM > >Venue: Dharmapala Institute, > 110 West Latimer Ave., > Campbell, CA 95008 > >Further info: sarachch@inow.com > >All are Welcome. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 18:22:05 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: anyone home? Message-ID: <341C638D.10E7@dmv.com> ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > At 11:39 AM 9/14/97 -0400, you wrote: > >Gad, the list has been dead. > > > >Or is it not working? > > > >Chuck the Heretic > > > Which list? theos-l? > > mkr Well, I'm here but just barely. There is some interesting action on an alchemy list that you can find at an alcemy web site; there's a link to it at: http://www.levity.com/ later... Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:37:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: anyone home? Message-ID: <970914203555_2051806693@emout17.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-14 12:46:13 EDT, you write: >We've been talking about you behind your ACK... > >--- >Jaqi. Thank Badness! If people stop talking about you you disappear. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 01:06:07 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Bart's "Judas" comment in Digest 1236 Message-ID: In message <970914113158_484329781@emout04.mail.aol.com>, DSArthur@aol.com writes >when careful >Biblical analyses and logic are applied to some of the scriptures serious >problems arise. Namaste - Dennis There are major anomolies all over the place, which is not surprising when we realise we are looking at a *collection* of manuscripts from various periods and schools of thought. Plus, even in the original language there are different versions from the translations commonly used and accepted. See, for example, the reference the Bethabara in my essay on The Nazarenes (on website below). Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 01:09:41 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: In message <2.2.32.19970914212925.011e899c@mail.eden.com>, ramadoss@eden.com writes >What do I do after I reach nirvana? Buy a map? Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:12:34 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <341CD08B.7F96@globalserve.net> Doss, you wrote: > What do I do after I reach nirvana? You're jossing me right? You know darn well I can't verbalize that yet!!! I'm struggling with astral travel, with being called into other time periods, with having visions and not knowing what to do with them, with being communicated with by trees, and by trying to "keep my feet on the ground" so that I can keep my job at the same time as studying every spiritually related thing I can get my hands on. And, as I no longer trust myself to remember precisely what I have read or heard, I had to crack the books to answer you. Nirvana (Buddhism): "following an experience of the unsatisfactory nature of all phenomena and tremendous physical pain followed by a state of effortless insight, nirvana is attained when consciousness ceases to have an object. Freedom from the wheel of becoming, no more karma accumulated, no need for rebirth to the physical world." Are we on the same wavelength? Beyond Nirvana: "Nirodh, absolute cessation of consciousness. Metabolism drops to minimal level necessary to maintain physical life." (finding this surprised me, I had thought Nirvana was the "end" of the process) I have not yet personal experience of either. Have you? Sounds like a spiritual OBE or an NDE. Apparently the life and personality changes of the returning subject are similar. Apparently was attained by some ancients, some Egyptians and yogis. What do *you* do when you reach it? I think I think what you do is entirely up to you. I think you manifest your own infinite destiny. Maybe you would burst into a trillion million pieces and join with the elements of the universe. Maybe you would return and be a "master" to help others. I'm almost sure whatever you did would be exactly right for your"self" and creation. You also wrote: > I am quite happy that I have something to do every minute of my day, and my > life is not dull at all and enjoy every minute of it? I am little at a loss to respond to this and wondering why you appear to have taken what I said personally. Here's two thoughts: 1. My apparent judgement call was a personal frustration (still) with "texts" that often appear to go round in circles, sometimes appear to say nothing and are even contradictory in some places. (Remember my goal is to "do it" in this lifetime). 2. (gulps and refuses to accept fear) Dear Doss, don't lower yourself to defend either yourself or your life choices to an idiot like me, how ever much you feel called to assist the "lost" :) Take care. Annette From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:31:43 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <341CD64F.5A1D@globalserve.net> > > >Gad, the list has been dead. > > > > > >Or is it not working? > > > > > >Chuck the Heretic > > > > > Which list? theos-l? > > > > mkr > Well, I'm here but just barely. There is some interesting action on an > alchemy list that you can find at an alcemy web site; there's a link Chuck, I am very concerned about you. I think perhaps you are existing on a different plane than the rest of us or perhaps your right and left brain lobes have somehow flipped. This (theos-l) list is one of the more active ones I have seen on the Net. Permit me to reverently ask what it is you are seeking. Philosophical debate; book reviews; challenges; personal revelations; jokes; dirty laundry? Chuck, this list debates theosophical ideas. And if some of us shared all we thought or experienced, we'd be thrown off it. annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 02:21:36 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, libidia wrote: > Chuck, I am very concerned about you. I think perhaps you are existing > on a different plane than the rest of us or perhaps your right and left > brain lobes have somehow flipped. This (theos-l) list is one of the > more active ones I have seen on the Net. On the contrary, I think perhaps one side of his brain is longer than the other in order to preserve continuity ...that way he doesn't have to flip them quite as often as the rest of us do. --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:29:03 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: A discussion with Krishnaji Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970915122903.00cc0250@mail.eden.com> Here is an interesting discussion that took place couple of years before Krishnaji died. mkr ----------------------------------------------------- A DIALOGUE BETWEEN J. KRISHNAMURTI AND PUPUL JAYAKAR AT BROCKWOOD PARK ON JUNE 7, 1981 J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Mrs. Jayakar and I are going to have a very serious discussion, a very serious dialogue very serious. So if you don't understand or if you get bored, please go out quietly all right? PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, one of the questions which I feel is at the very depth of the human mind is 'the coming to be' and 'the ceasing to be'. Life and death. The whole of man's life revolves around the wonder of birth and the fear of death. All his urges, his demands, his desires, his fears, his anxieties rest between these two poles birth and death. At one level we understand birth and death, but I think the understanding is only at the superficial level. And unless we understand, in depth, the whole problem of existence which is held between the two the whole problem that lies in the ending of anything fear, anxiety and the darkness and shadows which surround that one word 'ending', will always be with us. K: Why do you use the word 'problem'? Why do you make that interval between birth and death a problem? PJ: By themselves, birth and death are facts, but the mind can never leave them alone. The mind clings to one and rejects the other. K: Why do you use the word 'problem'? P: It is a 'problem' because of the shadows that surround that one word 'ending'. There is the joy and splendor of what we see as life and the demand to hold on to it at any cost and to evade that which means an ending. This is a problem. Out of it arise fear, sorrow, all the demands ... K: So what is the question? PJ: How do we explore? How can we be free of the darkness that surrounds the word? How can our minds look at death with simplicity and observe it for what it is? K: Are you really considering death or that great period between life and death? That is, are you including the whole process of living with all its complexity, misery, confusion all that in your consideration of the ending? Are you concerned with finding out what death means and what this long process of struggle, conflict, misery, etc., to which we cling in our avoidance of the other, is? Are you concerned with the whole movement of it? PJ: You see there is a whole movement of existence in which life and death are. But if you make the scope so wide, I don't think you can get to the anguish and the sorrow of ending. And I want to investigate into the sorrow of ending. K: Are you inquiring into the sorrow of ending or are you inquiring into the whole process of living and of dying, which includes sorrow, fear, and all the rest of it? PJ: In that one sentence what you say is correct it is the whole movement of living and dying which is existence. You talk of the ending of sorrow, I talk of that anguish, that fear, which is the sorrow of ending. K: Quite, quite. PJ: The two are slightly different. There is the anguish of 'something which is' ceasing to be... There is something which is marvelous, something which is beautiful, which fills one's life, and there is always the knowledge that it must end which lurks behind it. K: What is 'ending'? PJ: 'Ending' is that process in which something which exists, which sustains, ceases to be; it is no longer available to our senses. K: What is this? I don't quite understand. PJ: Sir, something is and in the very nature of that 'isness' there is the sense of the ending of that; there is the disappearance of that for eternity. K: Why do you use that word 'eternity'? PJ: Because there is an absoluteness in that ending. There is no tomorrow in it. K: Now just a minute ending what? PJ: Ending that which sustains. There is the sorrow of something so marvelous ending. K: Is it so marvelous? PJ: Let me come to something which is more direct. You are. That you will not be causes great anguish. You are. K: What do you mean, 'You are'? K is. In that statement K is is the anguish of K ceasing to be. Death is inevitable. The person is going to end someday. To him it doesn't matter; there is no fear, no anguish. But you look at that person and say, 'Oh my God, he is going to die'. So if I may use that word as you used it, it is your anguish. Now, why? PJ: It is ... K: Why? PJ: Why do you ask 'winy'? K: I've lived with that person; I've loved that person and he dies. I'm lost. Why? Why am I in a terrible state a state of despair, a state of loneliness? Why am I in tears, in anguish? Why am I in sorrow? We are not discussing this intellectually we are talking much more seriously. I've lost that person. He's been dear to me; he's been my companion. He comes to an end. I think it is really important to understand the ending, because there is something totally new when there is an ending. PJ: That is why I said you cannot ask the 'why' of it. K: 'Why' is merely put as an inquiry. PJ: My sorrow is it not inevitable? He was the perfume of my existence. K: Yes, I loved him. He was my companion sexually, and because of him I felt rich. And he, that person, comes to an end. PJ: Is not that sorrow? K: It is. My son or my brother dies. It is a tremendous sorrow. I shed tears. I am filled with anxiety. So the mind then says: I must find comfort in the thought that I shall meet him in my next life. I'm asking: Why does man carry the burden of this sorrow? I know it is sorrow; it is as devastating as if the whole of my existence were uprooted. It is like a marvelous tree torn, cut down in an instant. I'm in sorrow because I've never really understood deeply what ending is. I've lived for forty, fifty, or eighty years and during that entire period I have never realized the meaning of ending the putting an end to something which I hold dear. I have never totally ended belief, totally ended attachment ended it, so that it does not continue in another direction. PJ: What makes the mind capable of ending? K: I'm taking a very simple example attachment. Can one end without any motive or direction attachment, with all its complexity, and all its implications? Can one have no attachment to anything to one's experience, knowledge, memory? After all, the ending of knowledge that's what is going to happen when death comes. Knowledge is what one is clinging to. The knowledge of a person whom I've cherished, whom I've looked after, and lived with. There is the memory of the beauty and the conflict that was involved in it. Now, to end totally, absolutely, the memory of all that, is death. PJ: You have often said 'Living, enter the house of death'. What is exactly meant by that? K: 'To invite death while living' does not mean to commit suicide by taking a pill and, thus, ceasing to exist. I think it is very important to invite death while living. I have done it. You see, the word 'ending' itself contains a depth of meaning. Let us say that there is something, a memory of an experience that I cherish, that I hold on to because it has given me great delight, a sense of well being. I cling to that memory. I go to the office, I work, but the memory is so extraordinarily enduring and vital that I hold on to it; therefore I never find out what it means to end. I think there is a great deal in ending, every day, everything that one has psychologically gathered. PJ: You can end attachment. K: That is death. PJ: That is not death. K: What would you call death? The organism coming to an end? Or the image I've built about you ending? PJ: When you reduce it to that, I'd say that it is the image which you have built about someone; but there is much more than that. K: Of course. I've lived with you, cherished you, and the image of you is deeply rooted in me. You die and the image gathers greater strength. Naturally I put flowers at the shrine of that image; I give poetic words to it. But it is the image that is living. I'm talking of the ending of that image. The mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension if there is a shadow of a memory of anything. Because that other is timeless. That other dimension is eternal and if the mind has to enter into that, it must not have any element of time in it. I think this is logical, rational. PJ: But life is not logical; life is not rational. K: Of course not. To understand without time that which is everlasting, the mind must be free of all that one has gathered psychologically, which is time. Therefore, there must be ending. PJ: Therefore there is no exploration to ending? K: What is 'ending' ending to continuity? The continuity of a particular thought, a particular direction, a particular desire; it is these that give life a continuity. Birth and death in that great interval there is a deep continuity, like a river. The volume of water makes the river marvelous like the Ganga, Rhine, Amazon and we cannot see the beauty of the river. You see, we live on the surface of this vast river of our life, and we cannot see the beauty of it because we are always on the surface. And the 'ending' is the ending of the surface. PJ: The 'ending' of it is the ending of the surface ... K: Yes, the ending of the surface. PJ: What dies? K: All that I've accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly. I have good taste, and I've built up a good business which brings me lots of money nice house, nice wife, nice children, nice garden. And my life has given a continuity to it all. To end that. PJ: Sir, do you mind if I explore a little? You mean to tell me that with the death of the body of K, the consciousness of K will end? Please, I'm putting a lot of weight in this. K: You have said two things: The consciousness of K and the ending of the body. The body will end through accident, disease. That is obvious. What is the consciousness of that person? PJ: Enormous, unending, abounding compassion. K: Yes. I would not call that consciousness. PJ: I'm using the word 'consciousness' because it is associated with the body of K. I cannot think of another word. I could say 'the mind of K'. K: Keep to the word 'consciousness', and lets look at it. The consciousness of a human being is its content. The content is the whole movement of thought. Language, specialization, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, pain, loneliness, desperation, a sense of fear all that is the movement of thought. If the movement of thought ends, consciousness as we know it is not. PJ: But thought as a movement in consciousness as we know it does not exist in the mind of K. Yet there is a state of being which manifests itself when I'm in contact with him. It manifests itself therefore, even if you do not reduce it to thought. K: No, no. One must be very careful in pointing out something: consciousness as we know it is the movement of thought; it is a movement of time. PJ: Yes. K: See that very clearly. Consciousness as we know it is the movement of thought. Therefore, when thought, after investigating, etc., comes to an end not in the material world but in the psychological world consciousness as we know it is not. PJ: Sir, you can use any other word but there is a state of being which manifests itself as K. K: Yes. You are perfectly right. PJ: What word shall I use? K: I am not asking you to change words but let us say, for example, that through meditation real meditation and not all the foolish stuff that passes for it you've come to a point that is absolute. And you say so. PJ: Yes. K: And I see this. I feel it. To me this is a most extraordinary state. Through you, through my contact with you, I feel this immensity. And my whole urge, striving, says that I must capture it; I must have it. It is not you Pupulji having it. It is there. It is not yours or mine, it is there. PJ: But it is there because of you. K: It is there not because of me. It is there. PJ: Where? K: It has no place. PJ: I can only accept what you say up to a point. K: All right... First of all, it is not yours or mine. PJ: I only know that it is manifest in the person of K. Therefore when you say it has no place, I cannot accept it. K: Because you have identified K with that. PJ: But K is that. K: Wait... Maybe. But K says it has nothing whatsoever to do with K or anybody else. It is there. Beauty is not yours or mine. It is there. In a tree, in a flower it's there. PJ: But, sir, the healing and the compassion in K is not out there. K: Of course not. It is not out there. PJ: I'm talking about the healing and compassion of K. K: But that is not K. This... PJ: But it will cease to be manifest; that is what I'm saying, inquiring about. K: I get it, I get it. Of course, I understand what you are trying to say, but I question that. PJ: What do you mean 'I question that'? K: It may manifest through X. That which is manifested or which is manifesting does not belong to X. It has nothing to do with X. It has nothing to do with K. PJ: I'm prepared to accept that also, namely, that it does not belong to K. But K and 'that' are inseparable. K: All right, but when you identify 'that 'with the person, we enter into a very delicate thing. PJ: I want to go into it slowly. Take the Buddha. Whatever the Buddha consciousness was, or whatever was manifesting through him, has ceased to be. K: I question it. I doubt it. Lets be very careful. Let us talk about the Buddha. You say the consciousness of Buddha ceased when he passed away, right? It manifested through him and he was 'that' end when he died you say 'that' disappeared. PJ: I have no knowledge of saying that it disappeared. I only say that it could no longer be contacted. See this, K... K: Naturally not. PJ: Why do you say 'naturally not'? K: He was illumined and he came to it. Therefore between him and 'that' there was no division. 1, his disciple, say, 'My God, he is dead and with his death the whole thing is over'. I say it is not. That which is good can never be over. Just as evil (I am using the word 'evil', even though there is too much darkness involved with that word) continues in the world, right? Evil is totally different from that which is good. The good exists and has always existed, but not as the opposite of evil. The evil has in itself continued. PJ: But we are moving away. K: I'm not so sure, but it doesn't matter. PJ: You say that it does not disappear. K: Good can never disappear. PJ: I'm talking of that great illumined compassion. Now I can contact it. K: But you can contact it even if that person is not. That's the whole point. It has nothing to do with a particular person. PJ: Is what you say about being a light to yourself connected with the contacting of 'that' without the person? When you say that 'it' can be contacted without the person... K: Not 'contacted'. It can be perceived, lived; it is then for you to reach out and hold. It is then for you to reach out and receive it. Thought or consciousness as we know it has to come to an end, for thought is really the enemy of that. Thought is the enemy of compassion, obviously right? And to have that flame, it requires, it demands, not a great sacrifice of this and that but an awakened intelligence, an intelligence which sees the movement of thought. And the very awareness of the movement of thought ends it. That's what real meditation is. J: What then is the significance of death? K: None. It has no meaning because you are living with death all the time. It has no significance because you are ending everything all the time. I don't think we see the importance and beauty of ending. We see the continuity with its waves of beauty and all its superficiality. PJ: I drive away tomorrow. Do I cut myself completely from you? K: No, not from me; you cut yourself from that. You cut yourself from all that eternity with all its compassion, and so on. It's simple. I meet the Buddha. I listen to him very carefully. He makes a tremendous impression on me and, then, he goes away. But the truth of what he has said is abiding. He has told me, very carefully, 'Be a light to yourself so that the truth is in you'. It is that seed that is flowering in me. He goes away, but the seed is flowering. And I might say, 'I miss him. I'm sorry. I've lost a friend or somebody whom I really loved', but what is important is that the seed of truth which has been planted by my awareness, alertness, listening, that seed will flower. Otherwise what is the point of somebody having it? If X has this extraordinary illumination I'm using that word as a sense of immense compassion, and all that if only that person has it, and he dies, what then? >From KFA Bulletin No. 68, 1994 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:57:39 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970915125739.012d390c@mail.eden.com> At 02:45 AM 9/15/97 -0400, you wrote: >Doss, you wrote: >> What do I do after I reach nirvana? >You're jossing me right? You know darn well I can't verbalize that >yet!!! I'm struggling with astral travel, with being called into other >time periods, with having visions and not knowing what to do with them, >with being communicated with by trees, and by trying to "keep my feet on >the ground" so that I can keep my job at the same time as studying every >spiritually related thing I can get my hands on. And, as I no longer >trust myself to remember precisely what I have read or heard, I had to >crack the books to answer you. >Nirvana (Buddhism): "following an experience of the unsatisfactory >nature of all phenomena and tremendous physical pain followed by a state >of effortless insight, nirvana is attained when consciousness ceases to >have an object. Freedom from the wheel of becoming, no more karma >accumulated, no need for rebirth to the physical world." Hi, Annette: I was not very serious when I made the comment and be sure that I do not belittle any personal experience since there are a million things in the unseen world that I do not know of. I believe that there is a purpose in everything we experience. Talk of not being able to trust yourself to remember precisely what you have heard or read, it happens to everyone. I even had the problem of remembering where I put a book (right now I have been searching a book for the last 10 days wherein there is a comment about edited Krishnamurti's talks resulted in the editor introducing Theosophical ideas into them). >Are we on the same wavelength? > Sure we are. >Beyond Nirvana: "Nirodh, absolute cessation of consciousness. >Metabolism drops to minimal level necessary to maintain physical life." >(finding this surprised me, I had thought Nirvana was the "end" of the >process) >I have not yet personal experience of either. Have you? > Not yet. When I do, I will surely post it here, because I would like to share it with everyone possible. >Sounds like a spiritual OBE or an NDE. Apparently the life and >personality changes of the returning subject are similar. Apparently >was attained by some ancients, some Egyptians and yogis. > I agree. >What do *you* do when you reach it? I think I think what you do is >entirely up to you. I think you manifest your own infinite destiny. >Maybe you would burst into a trillion million pieces and join with the >elements of the universe. Maybe you would return and be a "master" to >help others. I'm almost sure whatever you did would be exactly right >for your"self" and creation. > Agreed. If I return, I would like to be not a "master" but a servant to help others. Master of oneself and servant of everyone. >You also wrote: >> I am quite happy that I have something to do every minute of my day, and my >> life is not dull at all and enjoy every minute of it? >I am little at a loss to respond to this and wondering why you appear to >have taken what I said personally. Here's two thoughts: No, I did not take it personally and if it appears to be so, I apologize. >1. My apparent judgement call was a personal frustration (still) with >"texts" that often appear to go round in circles, sometimes appear to >say nothing and are even contradictory in some places. (Remember my goal >is to "do it" in this lifetime). I think texts are just like signposts and the word is not the real thing. Even in real life situation I go round and round and suddenly lo and behold like a lightning the understanding of the problem (thus the solution also) happens. >2. (gulps and refuses to accept fear) Dear Doss, don't lower yourself Agree. Fear does distort how we see things and how we act. How can I lower myself, when I am still there. >to defend either yourself or your life choices to an idiot like me, how >ever much you feel called to assist the "lost" :) Take care. Annette Don't lower yourself. Each of us is intelligent and unique and once we recognize it, it is easy to communicate with each other like two human beings. Just my 2 cents. Did I miss anything? ......doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:57:37 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970915125737.012cbdc8@mail.eden.com> At 02:45 AM 9/15/97 -0400, you wrote: >Chuck, this list debates theosophical ideas. And if some of us shared >all we thought or experienced, we'd be thrown off it. >annette. > Let me but in. Be assured that no one will be thrown off this list for anything they post. Anyone can post anything that they want to? ......doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:29:32 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <199709160029.UAA10807@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: libidia > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Gad > Date: Monday, September 15, 1997 1:45 AM > > > > >Gad, the list has been dead. > > > > > > > >Or is it not working? > > > > > > > >Chuck the Heretic > > > > > > > Which list? theos-l? > > > > > > mkr > > Well, I'm here but just barely. There is some interesting action on an > > alchemy list that you can find at an alcemy web site; there's a link > > Chuck, I am very concerned about you. I think perhaps you are existing > on a different plane than the rest of us or perhaps your right and left > brain lobes have somehow flipped. This (theos-l) list is one of the > more active ones I have seen on the Net. > > Permit me to reverently ask what it is you are seeking. Philosophical > debate; book reviews; challenges; personal revelations; jokes; dirty > laundry? You are thinking in entirely wrong directions. How about dirty jokes? > Chuck, this list debates theosophical ideas. And if some of us shared > all we thought or experienced, we'd be thrown off it. It's happened. > annette. > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 21:05:50 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: gad Message-ID: <341DDB6E.24A6@globalserve.net> Hi Jaqi, how are you doing, you wrote: > On the contrary, I think perhaps one side of his brain is longer than the > other in order to preserve continuity ...that way he doesn't have to flip > them quite as often as the rest of us do. I read a couple of quickies in a medical journal recently. Apparently the male brain is much larger than the female and their time lag from intiation to rentention is longer. Also apparently, studies of prehistoric human's brains reveal a thick tissue connection between left and right lobes which we no longer have. Current hypothesis: this is why we have become disconnected from the mystical. Ummm. Take care. Annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:54:56 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: grrrh Message-ID: <341DD8E0.1D7A@globalserve.net> > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:29:03 -0500 > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: theos-l@vnet.net > Subject: A discussion with Krishnaji > Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970915122903.00cc0250@mail.eden.com> > > Here is an interesting discussion that took place couple of years before > Krishnaji died. > > mkr O.K. Ramadoss, I'm going to let you have it - right between the eyes (hey that's an interesting expression, probably meaning getting you in the third eye rather than "bullet to the brain"). I've just got in from an exhausting day in the corporate unreality and rushed to my computer with glee to read the group's latest debates and WHAT DO I GET? A looooong, round in circles lecture by some guy who was, no doubt about it, spiritually developed and insightful, well educated and groomed for leadership, who eventually walked away into his own separateness. Grrrh. Note bene Doss, I asked you, the person you, the bundle of energies and thoughts you, a couple of questions. Did you give me what I wanted? Nooooo. I wanted connection, communication, maybe an explosion of passion in your words as you told of your experiences with the bliss of your journey. Hell, I wanted sharing. You gave me Krishnaji. Well, here's what I say to you: 1. K could have and did say everything required in the last paragraph (and I don't have the incentive to re-read the middle) 2. K may not have meant to "toy" with his student throughout the debate but he did. 3. Answering a question with a question is a solid way of getting the student involved in the process of learning (which is only a process of releasing the knowledge already within) but there's a much kinder way of doing it, such as " I understand why you use the word problem, it's quite common to think of life and death like that in the beginning, but stop a minute, clear your thinking and consider this ........." 4. K didn't connect with his "student" (or me), it was all cerebral, in one ear and out the other Need I say more, you get where I'm coming from. No, you don't have to tell me I've got the wrong idea, that I'm still in the physical, way off base, eons away from true enlightenment. I've got a guy right here who tells me that every day. But I'll share with you something that I know is "truth" (whether you want to be shared with or not!). This weekend a young man of my long aquaintance started to break through the "barrier" of the material world existence and felt adrift, out of control, lacking in his old "I know it all" self confidence and we talked for some time. I said a lot (as you know full well I can), some of which may be seeds that will help him find a new direction, BUT the most important thing I did was not with my intellect. I GAVE HIM A HUG. Every so often, during my studies, my husband appears with a massive theosophical book. This is how it goes: He reads me what theosophy says on the subject I am contemplating. I say "that's interesting, Pete. What the hell does it mean?" He answers with a question. My blood pressure rises. He says I'm not understanding. I say, "try it in 25 words or less". He walks away. Don't do this to me Doss. I never walk away (and I don't mean just physically)! I ask you again. Have *you* experienced Nirvana? (and why have you taken the place of my husband in the communication sphere in the moment? I'm p'd off with myself. this goes against all my new principles.) annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 18:58:14 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Retention/recall(Re: gad) Message-ID: > Hi Jaqi, how are you doing, you wrote: > > On the contrary, I think perhaps one side of his brain is longer than the > > other in order to preserve continuity ...that way he doesn't have to flip > > them quite as often as the rest of us do. > I read a couple of quickies in a medical journal recently. Apparently > the male brain is much larger than the female and their time lag from > intiation to rentention is longer. Also apparently, studies of > prehistoric human's brains reveal a thick tissue connection between left > and right lobes which we no longer have. Current hypothesis: this is > why we have become disconnected from the mystical. Ummm. > Take care. Annette. Hi Annette, I'm fine, and you? This is interesting, for I just had a conversation yesterday with a friend about much the same thing. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "initiation and retention", but I imagine it has a lot in common with what we were talking about, being "initiation and recollection". We came to a perhaps erroneous conclusion that most, if not all, men "recall" in an associative(and linear) manner, whereas women "recall" in an almost quantum(and non-linear) manner. In other words, when a man wants to remember something, he has to follow a trail of associations, which are done quickly, such as coffee, then bean, then mom's bean soup, then mother, then mother's blue topaz earrings, the earrings being the proposed item of recall. A woman, on the other hand, does not need this association technique, (at least not as often). She seems to have her information in close proximity, almost as if coffee reminded her of her mother's earrings. In its purest (non-linear) form, we have photographic memory, which is close to what a woman has. Now, being as this male friend and I are severely analytical, almost to the point of irritating the hell out of each other, we decided to investigate the hypothesis furthur, under the guise of a competition of thought forms. The results were interesting, however unfounded, due to the lack of participants in the experiment. It is generally thought that in high schools and colleges, girls are better at math than boys. We decided to test this theory first. Here are the results. I was able to compute more complex equations much faster than he could in my head. However, and this was very interesting, he was able to, after lengthy thought, to provide me with more complex questions than I was able to give him, using the same amount of time. Also, he remembered many more mathematical theorums than I. His retention was much better, but his recollection was not as efficient. This well explained the reason behind girls doing better than boys in mathematics. It also explains why we find more male software programmers than female...although it takes a little more time, they remember more than the female might. This led to another test. Remembering lines, and if we could, entire stanzas, of Hamlet. He would state one line, and I was to state the line or stanza which followed it. I was able to remember, with clarity, three out of five, one of which was the stanza(paragraph, whatever). With those three I needed little time, maybe five or ten seconds, to remember. Even after thinking for a minute or more, I couldn't come up with anything better than scraps from the other two. After some thought, I came up with five as well. He knew four of them, three which were stanzas, however, it took him a minute or two to remember them in their entirety. With the fifth one, he couldn't even remember the line I gave him, so it was kind of unfair *giggle*. I'm beginning to wonder if I was right about the line...it may have been from somewhere else... Well, to conclude, I have another friend who has photographic memory. (The same lady who had the problems with the militia...grrr) She possesses both pluses. Her retention is extremely effective, and, likewise, her recollection is as efficient, if not moreso than mine. The reason why I bring this up is because my friend is also a female hermaphrodite, (which is one of the main reasons why the "religious" fascists didn't like her in the first place), which could be one of the reasons why she has the best of both worlds. It would be interesting to find out if other hermaphrodites, male or female, also have this kind of retention and recollection. It could explain the genius of Alexander... Ok, I'm done...:) --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 23:52:59 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: grrrh Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970916045259.012c1d04@mail.eden.com> At 09:08 PM 9/15/97 -0400, you wrote: > >I ask you again. Have *you* experienced Nirvana? >annette. No. .......doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:31:01 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 1237 Message-ID: <970916112855_395245421@emout16.mail.aol.com> Jerry S. wrote . I have to disagree with this statement because it distorts what karma is. Karma, as pointed out by a number of theosophical notables such as William Q. Judge, is essentially cause and effect ... and effects don't require "acceptance" in order to originate from causes. If, for example, I drive my car carelessly I may have an accident ... but "acceptance" by the person(s) in the car I hit is not a requirement for the accident to happen. It could well be that the person(s) in the other car just had an accident yesterday and the last thing they are willing to "accept" today is another accident. Nevertheless, if I drive with sufficient carelessness, it is very likely that they will have one. Namaste - Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:00:43 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Rules & Karma Message-ID: To Jerry Schueler - thank you for your answers. You also wrote: "I suspect that even they haven't got it all figured out. Karma sounds childishly simply on the surface, but its depths are beyond our human minds to fathom." When I read HPB-texts, I think they have all figured out, but did not write it down, but simply give some informations verbally only. I also thought again about what you wrote that the Leader of the Pasadena TS was saying. Let's agree that there is Karma for instance on the astral plane. As I see it, it stops in the middle of the noetical dimension where also the duality stops. So where does this karma come from? How does it get to the astral plane? What is your opinion to that point? Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:06:41 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Re: THEOS-L digest 1237 & T. Maroney's comments Message-ID: <970916120216_1123216376@emout16.mail.aol.com> Tim stated: "... this does not mean that we bear the responsibility for everything that happens to us." I reply that it most definitely does. I maintain that we live in a perfect universe and it is a non-sequiter that "bad things happen to good people." Simple logic dictates that in a perfect universe "good things happen to good people ... and bad things happen to bad people." This is, of course, an extremely simplistic answer and karma is much more complicated than that. For instance, what is "good" karma and, conversely, what is "bad" karma? Some karma may fall my way that you deem "bad" and I may (for my own reasons about which you know little or nothing) deem it "good." I forget who first said: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" but I believe it to be true, nevertheless. With respect to the "Judas analogy" he had free-will and did not have to accept agency for the karmic consequences that accrued to Jesus. No more than Hitler had to accept agency for the karmic consequences that accrued to six million Jews in Europe during World War II. Still, in order to protect my concept, I am compelled to conclude that all of the individuals involved got precisely (no more, no less) "what was coming to them." But never forget that "karma is an equal opportunity manifester." If the conditions are right, it manifests ... and if they aren't right it doesn't. So agency is a player in the drama but not the predominant player, i.e. if someone refuses agency, the karmic consequences will simply manifest sooner or later through some other agency. Thus it behooves all of us to be very careful with our elections of agency ... because we (and nobody else) must bear the ultimate responsibility for the results (both "good" and "bad") that result from such elections. Namaste - Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:23:11 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: ghouls an yucky stuff Message-ID: To Chuck the Heretic "Well, try not to meditate on the field of one of them. when I did I found myself kneeling before the porcelien god making offerings thereinto." What a golden humor! I am almost sure it is exactly this porcelien god making you feel the whole universe dislikes you ... and I am absolutely convinced that you are able to acknowledge, that this is my deepest inert recognition I ever had in my life! Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 12:11:41 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <199709161712.NAA10789@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Gad > Date: Monday, September 15, 1997 8:01 AM > > At 02:45 AM 9/15/97 -0400, you wrote: > > >Chuck, this list debates theosophical ideas. And if some of us shared > >all we thought or experienced, we'd be thrown off it. > >annette. > > > > Let me but in. Be assured that no one will be thrown off this list for > anything they post. Anyone can post anything that they want to? > > ......doss ANYTHING?!!! A. Safron > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:56:33 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <341ED661.B06@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > > Let me but in. Be assured that no one will be thrown off this list for > > anything they post. Anyone can post anything that they want to? > > > > ......doss > > ANYTHING?!!! I would assume at least SOME degree of sincerity is required, with the benefit of the doubt going to the poster. For example, if someone was posting ads for building a downline for some multi-level marketing, they probably would get thrown off (note the word, "probably"; I am certain that Chuck or someone could figure out a way of building a downline while remaining relevant to the list...). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:02:17 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Mirror, mirror. . . Message-ID: <199709162002.OAA17517@mailmx.micron.net> DSArthur wrote: >Still, in order to protect my >concept, I am compelled to conclude that all of the individuals involved got >precisely (no more, no less) "what was coming to them." I fear, Dennis, that the need "to protect [your] perfect universe" may be leading you down the path of indifference. Not one of us knows, absolutely, that people get "what is coming to them." And, since we don't know this, is it wise to adopt the philosophy that people get "what is coming to them?" What will this philosophy do to our psyche? How do we use this philosophy to enlarge our compassion? And, god forbid, what if we are WRONG? What if there is no such thing as karma? What if we are at the mercy of the cosmos much more than we believe? That should make us buddy-up all the more, I would think. I ask this - those of you who believe that people get what's coming to them, or somehow send messages that say "rape me" - what would you say to a person, who, after finding out you or a loved one was raped, robbed, killed, etc. . ., piped off to you "Sorry, but, alas, it was your/their karma?" Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:20:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <970916181633_-1197408245@emout16.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-16 13:33:09 EDT, you write: >ANYTHING?!!! > >A. Safron Of course anything. That's what makes it fun. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:23:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <970916181928_-795779572@emout03.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-16 15:04:42 EDT, you write: >(note the word, "probably"; I am certain >that Chuck or someone could figure out a way of building a downline >while remaining relevant to the list...). > > Bart Lidofsky That's it! You figured out what Annette is up to! Chuck the Heretic (who wouldn't touch an MLM with a very long pole) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:50:21 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970916235021.00d873ac@mail.eden.com> At 01:32 PM 9/16/97 -0400, you wrote: > >---------- >> From: ramadoss@eden.com >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: Re: Gad >> Date: Monday, September 15, 1997 8:01 AM >> >> At 02:45 AM 9/15/97 -0400, you wrote: >> >> >Chuck, this list debates theosophical ideas. And if some of us shared >> >all we thought or experienced, we'd be thrown off it. >> >annette. >> > >> >> Let me but in. Be assured that no one will be thrown off this list for >> anything they post. Anyone can post anything that they want to? >> >> ......doss > >ANYTHING?!!! > >A. Safron Sure. You can try. .....doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:32:33 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <199709170034.UAA00815@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Gad > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 1:59 PM > > A. Safron wrote: > > > Let me but in. Be assured that no one will be thrown off this list for > > > anything they post. Anyone can post anything that they want to? > > > > > > ......doss > > > > ANYTHING?!!! > > I would assume at least SOME degree of sincerity is required, with the > benefit of the doubt going to the poster. For example, if someone was > posting ads for building a downline for some multi-level marketing, they > probably would get thrown off (note the word, "probably"; I am certain > that Chuck or someone could figure out a way of building a downline > while remaining relevant to the list...). I was thinking about Chuck the babe posting ads for whips, leather outfits and kinky sex seminars. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 21:37:56 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: FW: The real thing Message-ID: <341F3474.7CBA@globalserve.net> Here you go Chuck: After the Great Britain Beer Festival, in London, all the brewery presidents decided to go out for a beer. The guy from Corona sits down and says "Hey Senor, I would like the world's best beer, a Corona." The bartender dusts off a bottle from the shelf and gives it to him. The guy from Budweiser says "I'd like the best beer in the world, give me 'The King Of Beers', a Budweiser." The bartender gives him one. The guy from Coors says "I'd like the only beer made with Rocky Mountain spring water, give me a Coors." He gets it. The guy from Guinness sits down and says "Give me a Coke." The bartender is a little taken aback, but gives him what he ordered. The other brewery presidents look over at him and ask "Why aren't you drinking a Guinness?" and the Guinness president replies "Well, if you guys aren't drinking beer, neither will I." Being a Guinness and "Real Ale" drinker, this one is close to my heart. All my other jokes are at work and I will forward them to home so that next time you get peeved with the list, just say the word and your wish is my command! Cheers. annette From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:31:11 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Welcome! Message-ID: Theosophy International welcomes Dr. Richard T. Diekmann! (T.S.A.) E-mail welcomes to YDS-77@webtv.net Richard belongs to the South Florida branch TS. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:50:39 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Re Re Karma Message-ID: <341F457F.7600@globalserve.net> Doss, you wrote (and lots more) > Not yet. When I do, I will surely post it here, because I would like to > share it with everyone possible. > Just my 2 cents. Did I miss anything? > >I ask you again. Have *you* experienced Nirvana? > > No. My sincere apologies. Our messages crossed. You answered every darn point. I'm humbled, chastized, sack cloth and ashed. (not sure how much passion there is in that "no" though!) It's turning into a black hole of Calcutta week. So far, I am told, I have been "acrimonious", and overheard one of my staff saying to the other today "why is she being such a bitch". This in response to me deciding not to be the big fire fighting problem solver every day and doing what I thought was firmly encouraging people to either do it themselves or put it in my in-tray when I would get to it on my own schedule (which will no longer be at 4.00 a.m.) Obviously I overdid it!! I've recorded in my journal: que sera, sera. Do I have to repeat this lesson AGAIN??? Golden stars to you, doss. Merci for your extensive reply. P.S. Re the Rajni lectures. I did ask for feedback. I received something akin to a grunt about the talks, but excitement with respect to the meditation training, and a long disertation on how a complete stranger Pete met there GAVE HIM A BICYCLE. Some's got the gift, other's got the rift! A bientot. Annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:01:09 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: grrrh Message-ID: In message <341DD8E0.1D7A@globalserve.net>, libidia writes >This is how it goes: He reads me what theosophy >says on the subject I am contemplating. I say "that's interesting, >Pete. What the hell does it mean?" He answers with a question. My >blood pressure rises. He says I'm not understanding. I say, "try it in >25 words or less". He walks away. It can usually be done in 50 words ... maybe you should compromise? :-) .. and yes, I appreciate your "grrrh" and the reason for it. [HUG] Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:12:01 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <341F4A81.F62@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > I was thinking about Chuck the babe posting ads for whips, leather > outfits and kinky sex seminars. Something like: "I have been discovering that the principles of unity can be learned through the vehicle of power exchange. I am currently selling equipment to facilitate this theosophical exercise. Also, for those who wish to learn more about this and other means of learning theosophical principles through personal interaction may...." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:18:08 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Mirror, mirror. . . Message-ID: In message <199709162002.OAA17517@mailmx.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes > >I ask this - those of you who believe that people get what's coming to them, >or somehow send messages that say "rape me" - what would you say to a >person, who, after finding out you or a loved one was raped, robbed, killed, >etc. . ., piped off to you "Sorry, but, alas, it was your/their karma?" Well, now, I don't believe it, and would say to such a person, "Drop dead." My disbelief is, of course, karma from my past life, about which I am also sceptical for the same karmic reason. Lives are a bitch .... Alan :-) hehehehehehehe (or sheshesheshe...) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:50:22 -0400 From: John E Mead Subject: Listonwer confirmed subscriptions Message-ID: <01INQVUAXRFW91YKT5@InfoAve.Net> > hi - > > Vnet is requiring all lists to be set to "approved requests". > the following letter was sent to all list owners. > > The only problem I can see with this is the small delay > it takes to confirm an address. > > john e. mead > > p.s. > FYI - all ISP's (world-wide) are taking stronger action to prevent spam. > > ---------- > > Subject: Listowner confirmed subscriptions > > Date: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 10:38 AM > > > > We have a problem with forged subscription requests. I'm switching > > everyone to listowner approved subscriptions. Several sinister people > > on the net have been sending forged subscription requests to our > > listproc and many other mailing list servers on the Internet. The > > object of these forgeries is to subscribe a victim to hundreds of > > mailing lists against the victim's will. This floods the victim's > > mail box with thousands of unwanted emails a day, effectively > > depriving them of the use of their mail box. > > > > With the software we use here at Vnet, the only practical way to > > prevent this problem is to require listowner confirmation of > > subscriptions. Later today, I will switch any open subscription lists > > we have to listowner approved subscription mode. When someone > > requests subscription to a list, the listproc will send a notice to > > the listowner. The listowner then sends a note to the person who > > requested the subscription. If the person replies and confirms that > > they want to subscribe, the listowner manually subscribes them using a > > "system" command. > > > > Any lists which already required listowner confirmation of > > subscriptions are not affected by this change. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:21:44 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: Retention/recall Message-ID: <341F5AD8.3AAF@globalserve.net> Hey Jaqi: Most interesting mail. I meant "recollection" (not retention), so your experiments, though not following scientifc methodolgy, were entirely pertinent (and who cares about scientific proof in such matters?) Re the associative v quantum recall method, synchronistically, I experienced a similar kind of test with my son recently. In a quiet moment, my son requested we play a game. One person chooses a year, the other person has to sing a few bars of a song from the pop charts, and the initial person has to name the singer. Notwithstanding that he's lounging in the passenger seat and I'm negotiating downtown traffic, I bombed out compared to him. Try as I might, singers names eluded me, so I resorted to describing the picture in my mind, like, "you know that dishy guy with the great buns who wore scarves and shirts open to the navel, the one we used to listen to when I made that chilli with double beans." Conversely, he'd say 1950's, I'd guffaw (he wasn't born then), I'd sing Cathy's Clown, he'd say "The Everley Brothers, come on Mum, quit making it easy". By the by, he's a computer programmer! > it takes a little more time, they remember more than the female might. So, if your test is indicative, for a level playing field in education, we have to allow the guys more time. This explains why we (women) ended up doing the same work for less pay AND making the coffee! > This led to another test. Remembering lines, and if we could, entire > stanzas, of Hamlet. He would state one line, and I was to state the line > or stanza which followed it. Are you telling me that you both remembered stanzas from Hamlet, presumably studied some time ago? I really enjoyed reading about your tests. And, with some coincidence, I stored away last week a mental note to look into exactly what you described about your friend and Alexander. Intend to get to it after getting into a great new book obtained today "The Encyclopaedia of Celtic Wisdom" in which pages 1 to 127 are about MEMORY!!! It recommends a great cure for the easing of headaches - the rubbing on of spittle. All this subjective stuff notwithstanding, I still tend to think in terms of neurons firing and basic memory paths laid down between ages of birth and about 6 years old for "working memory", and association with senses and emotions for "life events" memory. That's one of the reasons for pushing the envelope backwards. I postulate currently that with adequate practice of correct focus, I can "unlock" the memory of The People and remember stuff not recorded in books. Thanks for sharing. till later. Annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:15:45 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Karma and "blaming the victim" Message-ID: <199709170515.WAA04793@palrel1.hp.com> kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > DSArthur wrote: >> Still, in order to protect my "perfect universe" concept, I am compelled to >> conclude that all of the individuals involved got precisely (no more, no >> less) "what was coming to them." Though I wouldn't choose those words, I basically agree. This doesn't justify a karmic pawn like Hitler. "It must needs be that offenses come, but woe to the man by whom the offense cometh." (Kym) > Not one of us knows, absolutely, that people get "what is coming to them." > And, since we don't know this, is it wise to adopt the philosophy that > people get "what is coming to them?" What will this philosophy do to our > psyche? How do we use this philosophy to enlarge our compassion? Like all good things, the idea of karma can be misapplied (i.e., without compassion or in the sense of blaming). A better way for a victim to apply it is to say, "I am a worthy person. The fact that I have experienced a misfortune doesn't mean I am less worthy than the next person. But somehow I have earned the lesson in this experience. I choose not to stay bitter about it, nor rail against God or life." This, of course, is too much to expect immediately after a misfortune. But eventually, it is a healthier way to look at it. > I ask this - those of you who believe that people get what's coming to them, > or somehow send messages that say "rape me" - what would you say to a > person, who, after finding out you or a loved one was raped, robbed, killed, > etc. . ., piped off to you "Sorry, but, alas, it was your/their karma?" I don't believe a person sends messages that say "rape me". Karma doesn't need such a mechanism to work. As far as what I would say, let's use your example. (Some guys _are_ raped.) If it happened to me and someone *started* with, "You earned it." I would probably be quite angry. I would expect him to sympathize with how difficult the rape was to experience and how difficult it is for me to pick up the pieces now. If he said it to me with a condescending tone, I would feel judged. Having said that, however ... If after gaining the tools to get on with my life, I heard, "LIFE IS UNFAIR," and I believed it, I would be *VERY* angry with God. I would also ask why He/She would kill a child for no reason other than to give it's parents a lesson. While I might outwardly accept my lot in life, I would go on with an inner bitterness. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 00:16:51 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Re Re Karma Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970917051651.01237824@mail.eden.com> At 10:50 PM 9/16/97 -0400, you wrote: >Doss, you wrote (and lots more) >> Not yet. When I do, I will surely post it here, because I would like to >> share it with everyone possible. >> Just my 2 cents. Did I miss anything? >> >I ask you again. Have *you* experienced Nirvana? >> >> No. >My sincere apologies. Our messages crossed. You answered every darn >point. I'm humbled, chastized, sack cloth and ashed. >(not sure how much passion there is in that "no" though!) I was a little concerned that I offended you and that I don't do because everyone here is my friend. So apologies are due at all. It was a brief No just to avoid any misunderstanding. >It's turning into a black hole of Calcutta week. So far, I am told, I >have been "acrimonious", and overheard one of my staff saying to the >other today "why is she being such a bitch". This in response to me >deciding not to be the big fire fighting problem solver every day and >doing what I thought was firmly encouraging people to either do it >themselves or put it in my in-tray when I would get to it on my own >schedule (which will no longer be at 4.00 a.m.) Obviously I overdid it!! > When you are yourself, in the long run you will come out ok. >I've recorded in my journal: que sera, sera. Do I have to repeat this >lesson AGAIN??? No. >Golden stars to you, doss. Merci for your extensive reply. You are too kind and considerate. I don't deserve anything least of all Golden stars!!! >P.S. Re the Rajni lectures. I did ask for feedback. I received >something akin to a grunt about the talks, but excitement with respect >to the meditation training, and a long disertation on how a complete >stranger Pete met there GAVE HIM A BICYCLE. >Some's got the gift, other's got the rift! >A bientot. >Annette. > Interesting. Take care. ...............doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:35:50 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: grrrh Message-ID: <199709171238.IAA22906@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: libidia > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: grrrh > Date: Monday, September 15, 1997 8:08 PM > > Every so often, during my studies, my husband appears with a massive > theosophical book. This is how it goes: He reads me what theosophy > says on the subject I am contemplating. I say "that's interesting, > Pete. What the hell does it mean?" He answers with a question. My > blood pressure rises. He says I'm not understanding. I say, "try it in > 25 words or less". He walks away. For twenty-five year I have read Alice Bailey books (not with some difficulty). My husband says they are incomprehensiblle to him. Just like his computer manuals are incomprehensible to me. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 9:21:39 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Perfect universe, heartless ideologues Message-ID: <199709171321.JAA26173@leo.vsla.edu> Hear, hear to Kym's comments about Dennis's effort to hang onto belief in a perfect universe regardless of the implications. One of the big revelations to me after spending a month and a half in India is that the Theosophical claim by HPB and other writers-- that if people believed in reincarnation and karma they would behave better-- is flapdoodle bullshit. I saw more total indifference to human suffering there in a few weeks than in my entire life until then. And all those indifferent people were sure that suffering was what the sufferers had coming to them. Maybe Mother Theresa made such a big impact there because she ran so much against the grain of the cultural assumptions. However, I would say that there is a grain of truth in the perfect universe theory if we look at it in terms of the future rather than the past. It is absolutely appalling, unacceptable, to think that Hitler's or Stalin's or Pol Pot's victims "had it coming." But perhaps they now "have coming" some nobility of soul, some commitment to humanity, as a result of what they experienced. In short, only final causes can make this into a perfect universe; i.e. one that at some point will dry all tears and heal all wounds and bring us all back to our heavenly source. It sure as *hell* ain't perfect here and now. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:26:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <970917132426_-1331508554@emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-16 21:01:50 EDT, you write: >I was thinking about Chuck the babe posting ads for whips, leather >outfits and kinky sex seminars. > >A. Safron That's on a different list. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:35:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: FW: The real thing Message-ID: <970917133239_1718404408@emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-17 04:29:15 EDT, you write: >Being a Guinness and "Real Ale" drinker, this one is close to my heart. >All my other jokes are at work and I will forward them to home so that >next time you get peeved with the list, just say the word and your wish >is my command! >Cheers. annette > ROFLMAO This list needs all the intentional humor it can get, especially when Alan's lumbago starts acting up. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 13:36:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <970917133415_1763208250@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-17 04:53:08 EDT, you write: > Something like: > > "I have been discovering that the principles of unity can be learned >through the vehicle of power exchange. I am currently selling equipment >to facilitate this theosophical exercise. Also, for those who wish to >learn more about this and other means of learning theosophical >principles through personal interaction may...." > That is not as funny as you may think. I have a feeling that someone is already using that line, minus the word "theosophical." Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 17:08:29 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <342046CD.41B8@sprynet.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-09-17 04:53:08 EDT, you write: > > > Something like: > > > > "I have been discovering that the principles of unity can be learned > >through the vehicle of power exchange. I am currently selling equipment > >to facilitate this theosophical exercise. Also, for those who wish to > >learn more about this and other means of learning theosophical > >principles through personal interaction may...." > > > > > > That is not as funny as you may think. I have a feeling that someone is > already using that line, minus the word "theosophical." As I may have mentioned before, I have some friends who are editors at Penthouse Magazine (who were invaluable in teaching me to do layout for The New York Theosophist). In any case, I am familiar with the language. Bart Lidofsky Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:13:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Gad Message-ID: <970917191112_-963665891@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-17 17:12:29 EDT, you write: > As I may have mentioned before, I have some friends who are editors at >Penthouse Magazine (who were invaluable in teaching me to do layout for >The New York Theosophist). In any case, I am familiar with the language. > > Bart Lidofsky Yeah, the level of pomposity some s/m people can reach far exceeds anything Theosophists are capable of. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:00:53 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Perfect universe, heartless ideologues Message-ID: In message <199709171321.JAA26173@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >One of the big revelations to me after spending a month and a >half in India is that the Theosophical claim by HPB and other >writers-- that if people believed in reincarnation and karma >they would behave better-- is flapdoodle bullshit. I saw more total >indifference to human suffering there in a few weeks than in my >entire life until then. And all those indifferent people were >sure that suffering was what the sufferers had coming to them. An old friend of mine noticed exactly the same attitude among Buddhists in Bangkok ...... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:54:03 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Giving & Receiving Karma from Others Message-ID: <199709180211.WAA02334@NetGSI.com> >Jerry S. wrote it.> I have to disagree with this statement because it distorts what karma >is. Karma, as pointed out by a number of theosophical notables ... Well, you are perfectly free to believe as you will. As for me, I stand by my statement, albeit the "acceptance" is usually subconscious. Your notable quotes from Judge and others do nothing to change my view. If you irritate me, then I must have "let" you do it. If you try to give me a guilt trip, I have to allow you. Of course physical karma still appiles--if you shoot me I will bleed, but I was not really talking about physical karma. I suppose what I should have said was, your mental body (attitudes, beliefs, etc) can only affect my mental body, if I allow it. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 22:03:27 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Karma Message-ID: <199709180211.WAA02340@NetGSI.com> >When I read HPB-texts, I think they have all figured out, but did not >write it down, but simply give some informations verbally only. I also >thought again about what you wrote that the Leader of the Pasadena TS >was saying. Let's agree that there is Karma for instance on the astral >plane. As I see it, it stops in the middle of the noetical dimension >where also the duality stops. So where does this karma come from? >How does it get to the astral plane? What is your opinion to that point? > >Nicole Suter Do you think they deliberately withheld information? I suspect so, at least a little. How did you get the idea that karma "stops" at the "noetic dimension"--whatever that is? Top of the mental plane? No, karma goes all the way to the Abyss. It governs actions on all four lower planes. When we pass the Abyss and enter the spiritual planes (mystical experience, satori, samadhi, etc) then all personal karma ceases. I suspect that collective karma applies a little, even in the spiritual worlds. Duality is another ballgame. It only stops after the first and highest plane. Duality exists on all planes of this solar system of 7 planes. The very highest duality is subject and object, or purusha and prakriti. These two, together with their connecting link form the spiritual monad, a triad. Karma implies action of some sort. HPB calls all original action Motion, but this has only spiritual karma, and I am not real sure what that is. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:57:11 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Perfect universe,heartless ideologues Message-ID: <199709180357.UAA14581@palrel1.hp.com> "K. Paul Johnson" wrote: > One of the big revelations to me after spending a month and a > half in India is that the Theosophical claim by HPB and other > writers-- that if people believed in reincarnation and karma > they would behave better-- is flapdoodle bullshit. I saw more total > indifference to human suffering there in a few weeks than in my > entire life until then. And all those indifferent people were > sure that suffering was what the sufferers had coming to them. > Maybe Mother Theresa made such a big impact there because she > ran so much against the grain of the cultural assumptions. Yes, there is an unfortunate fatalism in India. But don't base your conclusions on the usefulness of the knowledge of karma and reincarnation on people who misapply it. According to that logic, the religions of the world are totally wrong because most people fail in their practice of it. > It sure as *hell* ain't perfect here and now. "Perfect" is being used in two entirely different senses. A law can function perfectly (i.e. gravity), but the people who are subject to the law have the free will to be as imperfect as they wish. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 02:41:33 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Theos-L Digest 1245 Message-ID: <970918024132_-995891968@emout05.mail.aol.com> Wow! Where shall I begin to defend "The Perfect Universe?" I guess with Jerry because his post is easily addressed. Jerry, when you ascribe karmic acceptance to the higher, i.e. mental planes we can find some basis for agreement. I particularly liked your analogy that ran "if I am cut I will bleed" ... because that is precisely what you will do and it matters not one whit whether you "accept" the cut or not! On the other hand, we have enormous latitude at the mental level with regard to how we deal with our karmic circumstances. To cite two hypothetical examples, if you happen to fall from a considerable height you will not only descend toward the center of the earth but at an accelerating (and very precise) rate, i.e. 32 feet per second per second until you attain what physicists call "terminal velocity" .. unless, of course, you encounter some immovable object (generally the ground) before that speed is reached. And if you should happen to fall from the same height 10,000 times, you will still accelerate at precisely the same rate for precisely the same length of time. Why? Because the universe is perfect, that's why. The laws of physics are invariable --- at least on this plane of existence. Now, hopefully, nobody will post a Chaos Theory objection to this statement. I admit that I am no particle physicist but I do know a little (probably just enough to get me into trouble) about Chaos Theory and the only conclusion I can draw from it is that the fact (and at the present time it IS a fact) that some events at the sub-atomic level are not predictable only proves that at our present level of understanding about particle physics we can't predict them. It does not prove that they will never be predictable. As a "perfect universe" advocate, of course, I will go way out on a limb and say (though I cannot at this time prove) that all physical effects have precise causes and visa versa. We simply haven't progressed far enough yet to be able to fully understand the interrelationships. But we will, folks, trust me on this one. It is only a matter of time. But the higher planes are a different story ... which leads into the second hypothetical example. Because of free will, level of enlightenment and a host of other factors it is not possible to predict with any degree of certainty what karmic effect will result from any particular karmic cause on mental levels. An event that might enrage me may only bring a smile to your lips and visa versa. We are not robots. We are bound by precise physical parameters ... but the mental parameters are almost unlimited. So, Jerry, your point about karmic acceptance being a major player on higher levels is well taken. For Kym: you wrote < I fear, Dennis, that the need "to protect [your] perfect universe" may be leading you on the path of indifference > Kym, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about this! It is precisely because this IS a perfect universe that nobody can really afford to be "indifferent." In a less than perfect universe, you see, some might be able to get away with transgressions ... but I choose to agree with Albert Einstein who once remarked: "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe." That is the irony of it, Kym. What you term "indifference" is only affordable in a less than perfect universe which, precisely because it is imperfect, might permit some (and perhaps many) to "slip through the karmic web." But that doesn't happen in a perfect universe. Nobody slips by. The apostle, Paul, said it nicely in Galatians 6: 7 (NKJV): Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. But in the less than perfect universe that you apparently envision, Kym, that isn't necessarily true, is it? Because of imperfection in the Plan sometimes (perhaps even often??) God IS mocked. "Life's a beach ... and then you drown" ... right? Well, you are entitled to your views just as I am entitled to mine but on this one I'll cast my vote with Paul. And speaking of Paul (as in K. Paul Johnson) ... he writes < One of the big revelations to me after spending a month and a half in India is that the Theosophical claim by HPB and other writers -- that if people believed in reincarnation and karma they would behave better -- is flapdoodle bullshit >. On this one I think you are rushing to judgment, Paul. The key word here is "BELIEVED." You have evidently decided that if someone is resident in India and professes a belief in karma and reincarnation that surely such individuals must truly believe in these concepts. Not so, Paul. Try this Biblical adage: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them [Matthew 7:20 (NKJV)]. Or, to use a more colloquial expression: "if it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck --- it's a duck." And it doesn't much matter where it is or what else it may profess itself to be. The bottom line, Paul? You show me someone who is indifferent to the welfare of others (and I know that if we were in India together you could point out a LOT of it) ... and I'll show you someone who does NOT believe in karma and reincarnation and it doen't much matter that they vigorously protest otherwise. By their fruits ... . Finally, for Kym again: your Biblical quote: ... for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! is right on target. And that is precisely why, in a perfect universe (but not necessarily in an imperfect one), indifference to the welfare of others is really not a luxury anyone can afford nor, if they truly believe in a perfect universe, will they be inclined to try and afford it. For the less Biblically knowledgable, incidentally, Kym's verse can be found in Matthew 18: 7 (NKJV). NAMASTE - Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:39:44 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma and "blaming the victim" Message-ID: <199709180739.BAA27598@mailmx.micron.net> Titus wrote: >> DSArthur wrote: > >>> Still, in order to protect my "perfect universe" concept, I am compelled to >>> conclude that all of the individuals involved got precisely (no more, no >>> less) "what was coming to them." > >Though I wouldn't choose those words, I basically agree. This doesn't justify >a karmic pawn like Hitler. "It must needs be that offenses come, but woe to >the man by whom the offense cometh." This reasoning, to me, seems a vicious circle. If it "must" be that offenses come, then someone "has" to be the 'person by whom the offense cometh.' As in the Judas analogy, if Judas had not turned Jesus in - Jesus would not be venerated as he is, for he is supposed to "have died for our sins" and then "resurrected;" consequently, this act "cleansed" us, dangled the carrot of "eternal life" in front of our noses, and provided fodder for some pretty gruesome, and treasured, artwork for the churches. To me, cold, rational thought would say that Judas was/is as much responsible for 'redeeming' the world as Jesus was/is. HPB, along with many others, has made references to the "ancestors" of the Jewish race as being little more than rebellious teenagers when it was decided to implement the "Greater Plan." Seems the Individuals, from whence the Jewish race is supposed to have come, wanted to go their own way. . .didn't want to join the club. So, due to this, I guess, it has been necessary for the Jews to get a clue regarding the error of their ways, and the Holocaust was one way to tap them on the shoulder. So, does that mean Hitler HAD to be, and if so, then why should Hitler be so hated? Was Hitler not simply doing what had to be done - helping the Jews come back to the nest? If not him, wouldn't it have had to be someone else? I guess my point is: if we can really say that we all get what we deserve, how can we then judge those who are part of fulfilling the lessons of karma? Maybe my hat of aluminum foil is getting its signals mixed up - but I can't accept this theory of karma anymore than I can accept a pound of purple poo as a Christmas gift. It just doesn't fit. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 01:47:16 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Theos-L Digest 1245 Message-ID: <199709180747.BAA28168@mailmx.micron.net> Dennis wrote: > Finally, for Kym again: your Biblical quote: ... for it must needs be that >offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! is right on >target. And that is precisely why, in a perfect universe (but not >necessarily in an imperfect one), indifference to the welfare of others is >really not a luxury anyone can afford nor, if they truly believe in a perfect >universe, will they be inclined to try and afford it. For the less >Biblically knowledgable, incidentally, Kym's verse can be found in Matthew >18: 7 (NKJV). NAMASTE - Dennis Sorry, Dennis - the target award for throwing around a piece of the Good Book goes to Mr. Titus Roth. I am among the Biblically-challenged. . . Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:37:08 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Perfect universe, heartless ideologues Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970918113708.0127b7c8@mail.eden.com> At 09:22 AM 9/17/97 -0400, K. Paul Johnson wrote: > >Hear, hear to Kym's comments about Dennis's effort to hang onto >belief in a perfect universe regardless of the implications. >One of the big revelations to me after spending a month and a >half in India is that the Theosophical claim by HPB and other >writers-- that if people believed in reincarnation and karma >they would behave better-- is flapdoodle bullshit. I saw more total >indifference to human suffering there in a few weeks than in my >entire life until then. And all those indifferent people were >sure that suffering was what the sufferers had coming to them. >Maybe Mother Theresa made such a big impact there because she >ran so much against the grain of the cultural assumptions. > In such a short time of 1-1/2 months, what one sees is just the surface. >From what I have seen over several decades in India is that on much serious issues, there is more of application of the principle of Karma and Reincarnation, however distorted the understanding may be. Principally, the thought that generally comes to most in India is the fear that doing something wrong is going to get you serious consequences at a future time which may be next moment or next manvantara. May be someone from the West who has spent a considerable time in India may be able to give a feedback. ............doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 13:37:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Giving & Receiving Karma from Others Message-ID: <970918133612_1585666802@emout19.mail.aol.com> I have to get in on this one. First, I don't really believe there is such a thing as karma, so this is, from a personal point of view, purely hypothetical, but it would depend on the actual mechanism by which karma, if it did exist, would function. If it functions as a manifestation of etheric energy, then it would be simplicity itself to dump it on another person whether that person accepts it or not, in fact more fun if they not only don't accept it but have no idea where it's coming from. All that would be needed would be a working thoughtform that would grab the incoming karmic energy and transfer it to the life fields of the victim. That's what I would do if I believed in such a thing, but being convinced as I am that the idea of Karma was one of those Big Lies created by religious dictators to try to control people, I don't spend any time worrying about it. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 15:52:15 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Giving & Receiving Karma from Others Message-ID: <3421866F.51C1@sprynet.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > First, I don't really believe there is such a thing as karma, so this is, > from a personal point of view, purely hypothetical, but it would depend on > the actual mechanism by which karma, if it did exist, would function. One of the things I like about the Theosophical Society is the non-requirement that you believe any of the doctrine. I have recently found a piece of a Mahatma Letter which I find VERY disturbing (regarding not everybody on Earth being a member of the same root race), and if I can't find an interpretation around it, I am just going to openly say I don't believe it. > If it functions as a manifestation of etheric energy, then it would be > simplicity itself to dump it on another person whether that person accepts it > or not, in fact more fun if they not only don't accept it but have no idea > where it's coming from. All that would be needed would be a working > thoughtform that would grab the incoming karmic energy and transfer it to the > life fields of the victim. > > That's what I would do if I believed in such a thing, but being convinced as > I am that the idea of Karma was one of those Big Lies created by religious > dictators to try to control people, I don't spend any time worrying about it. I believe that karma was a Big Lie created by religious dictators to control people. I also believe that the Mahatmas wished to decribe a fundamental law of the universe, and, having no better term for it, used the term "karma". The difference between the former and the latter (IMHO) is that in the former case, if one is the carrier of karma, then one is not responsible for the karma he gives. In Theosophy, everybody is repsonsible for their own actions; if you perform an action affecting a third party, they may be having the karma coming to them, but you also create your own karma. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:19:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Giving & Receiving Karma from Others Message-ID: <970918174926_962255302@emout17.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-18 15:55:41 EDT, you write: > In Theosophy, everybody >is repsonsible for their own actions; if you perform an action affecting >a third party, they may be having the karma coming to them, but you also >create your own karma. > > Bart Lidofsky Interesting. I contend that as the universe is, in human terms, totally value free, then the concept of responsibility has no place outside of human realtionships, and thus if you don't get anything back to you from other people, you are not going to get it from anywhere else. In other words, if you get away with it in this life, you don't have to worry about it in any other. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:22:33 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma and "blaming the victim" Message-ID: <7TKfdiAJXcI0EwOX@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199709180739.BAA27598@mailmx.micron.net>, kymsmith@micron.net writes >Maybe my hat of aluminum foil is getting its signals mixed up - but I can't >accept this theory of karma anymore than I can accept a pound of purple poo >as a Christmas gift. It just doesn't fit. > No more do I. Karma to me means there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It even costs someone something (if only time) to deliver purple poo. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 01:19:22 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Theos-L Digest 1245 Message-ID: <3jKcReAKUcI0Ews1@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <970918024132_-995891968@emout05.mail.aol.com>, DSArthur@aol.com writes >Kym's verse can be found in Matthew >18: 7 (NKJV). NAMASTE - Dennis .. or any other version in some interpretation or another. I recommend the NRSV :-) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 00:57:54 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma and "blaming the victim" Message-ID: <199709190757.AAA08184@palrel1.hp.com> First, let me say I'm impressed with all the discussion that has come out. It seems full of honest inquiry. kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Titus wrote: >> Though I wouldn't choose those words, I basically agree. This doesn't >> justify a karmic pawn like Hitler. "It must needs be that offenses come, >> but woe to the man by whom the offense cometh." > This reasoning, to me, seems a vicious circle. If it "must" be that > offenses come, then someone "has" to be the 'person by whom the offense > cometh. [snip] > To me, cold, rational thought would say that Judas was/is as much > responsible for 'redeeming' the world as Jesus was/is. You do have interesting questions and points. Certainly we shouldn't be too glib and unthinking in our ideas of karma. Compassion is called for at all times. I don't have a cut and dried answer to your points, but FWIW, here are my thoughts ... Judas did play a role in the drama. But your analogy would be like saying the wastebasket in a jet plane is as responsible for the plane getting to its destination as the engines. There is possibly some truth to it. I wouldn't want to be on an airplane without a wastebasket, or the on-off switch to the engines, or the wings, or any of the parts. They are all essential. I'd humbly settle for being the door, or the cabin lights, but who wants to be the wastebasket? [snip] > I guess my point is: if we can really say that we all get what we deserve, > how can we then judge those who are part of fulfilling the lessons of karma? It depends on what you mean by judge. I wouldn't judge Judas the person, because who knows what made him the way he was? Maybe his makeup gave him no choice. Jesus forgave Judas and his backers, so I would try to do the same. But I would judge the action. Also, though Judas played his part in the drama, he also probably paid a karmic penalty. Who wants more karma? Not me, thanks. > Maybe my hat of aluminum foil is getting its signals mixed up - but I can't > accept this theory of karma anymore than I can accept a pound of purple poo > as a Christmas gift. It just doesn't fit. Hey, purple poo is necessary a part of life - at least as long as we have beets. But then again, I see your point. ;) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:38:08 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Digest 1246 Message-ID: <970919053807_438873340@emout01.mail.aol.com> For Titus: you said (in Digest 1246): <... don't base your conclusions on the useful-ness of the knowledge of karma and reincarnation on people who misapply it. According to that logic, the religions of the world are totally wrong because most people fail in their practice of it.> And I say: right on, Titus, you're a man after my own heart! And why shouldn't you be? In complete accordance with the "Perfect Universe" concept, you ARE my own heart .. as is everyone else. For Paul: who said I reply: au contraire, Paul, the universe IS perfect here and now; it is only our perception of it and conse-quently our reaction to it that is imperfect. For Kym: who said I say: finish reading the verse, Kim. It reads: but woe unto him by whom the offence cometh (Matthew 18:7 [NKJV]. Your name is Kym, not "Somebody" ... and so I respectfully suggest that you be (insofar as it is within your capability to be) the willing karmic agent only for events that your own conscience tells you to deal with ... and leave everything else to "Somebody." You also said: And I say: when I subject this particular issue to cold, rational thought I reach precisely the same conclusion --- a fact that has not endeared me to some of my more conservative Christian friends. You also asked: I reply: no, he didn't HAVE to accept karmic agency for manifestation of the Holocaust ... and that is precisely why he is so hated. He made the mistake I just urged you not to make, i.e. thinking he was "Somebody" (as in, "it's a dirty job but Somebody has to do it") when he was actually just a man named Adolph Hitler. Let me put it this way, Kym. Karma is a magnificent (and complex and vast) universal law. It can (and will) always find "Somebody" whenever "Somebody" (or "Something") is required. Thus there is never any need for Kym Smith or Adoph Hitler or any other particular individual to "volunteer." Consequently, unless you are reasonably certain of the appropriateness of whatever you are contemplating doing, it may be better to let "Somebody" (else) do it. You also said: <... if we can really say that we all get what we deserve, how can we then judge those who are part of fulfilling the lessons of karma?> And I reply: excellent question, Kym, and the answer is truly complex. But, if you'd like the "simplified version," try Matthew 7:1 and 2 (NKJV). I sincerely hope that someday as you continue to travel on The Path you will come to accept the theory of karma ... at which time I shall be pleased to send you "a pound of purple poo." Meanwhile, why not invest a little of your time reading "The Good Book?" At your present level of understanding you may discover that it is not as "challenging" as you once thought. For Doss: Your comments (in Digest 1246) showed IMHO real insight ... as usual. For Chuck: to my way of thinking, karma, like gravity, manifests whenever and in whatever way it can ... and, like gravity, it doesn't require anyone's belief in order to do so. With respect to your view about "getting away with it," I sincerely urge you not to rely too heavily on that idea. Everybody makes mistakes ... and that includes Chuck the Heretic. For Bart: The final sentence in your comments to Drpsionic says it all ... and I hope Kym read it. For Alan: your brief post was a little confusing. You suggest that you don't believe in karma ... and then follow up immediately with the comment that "there ain't no free lunch." IMHO that is the very essence of karma. NAMASTE to all --- Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 06:09:20 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Lecture Program in San Antonio TX Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970919110920.01227dd0@mail.eden.com> In Mid October, 1997, Betty Bland will be visiting San Antonio TX and will be speaking at the San Antonio TS (Adyar) Lodge. As soon as I know the specifics, will post a msg. Anyone interested is welcome. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:39:28 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Karma Message-ID: I have red myself through all these karma-discussions and deceided to give myself time to deceide wheter there is karma or not. I have used the expression karma I don't know how many times believing that it means "law of cause and effect". Somehow, I felt I should look up its definition in my German Duden - there I found a completly different translation of the word "karma" - nothing to do with "cause & effect" at all. And there is so much warmth in that definition, that it can't be wrong. I am not that good in English that I would feel able to translate this definiton correctly, but I guess there are also English wordbooks which may give proper information. Is there anybody who might even be able to find a proper translation of the sanskrit word? I guess there is nothing wrong with the word "karma" at all, but large amounts of how it is understood or has been misused for. Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 12:17:21 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Senatorial astrology (fwd) Message-ID: <199709191617.MAA07827@leo.vsla.edu> According to K. Paul Johnson: We have a new reference book on Congress, and when I saw it had birthdates for all members I decided to do a little detective work. Since A.R.E. folks tend to be astrology-oriented I hope some of you will find it interesting. Needless to say, I hope comments won't get politically partisan. But there are some striking patterns. It would have taken all day to do the Congress, but I categorized all the Senators after discarding the 6 born on sign-change days as there were no times of birth given. Of the 94 whose sun signs I could identify, there are: 12 Cancers (9D,4R) 11 Scorpios (7D,4R) 10 Pisces (6D,4R) 9 Virgos (5D,4R) 9 Aquarians (7R,2D) 9 Taureans (7R,2D) 8 Sagittarians (5R,3D) 7 Capricorns (4R,3D) 6 Librans (4R,2D) 5 Aries (4R,1D) 5 Leos (3D,2R) 4 Geminis (2D,2R) The only tie-- how appropriate! Disparity in party affiliation by signs is more apparent when we note that the Democrats number 7 Cancers, 7 Scorpios, 6 Pisces, 3 Capricorns, 3 Sagittarians, 3 Leos, 2 Taureans, 2 Geminis, 2 Libras, 1 Aries. Whereas the Republicans number 7 Taureans, 7 Aquarians, 5 Sagittarians, 4 each for Aries, Cancer, Virgo, Libra, Capricorn, and Pisces, 2 each for Geminis and Leos. Preliminary comments: Most striking is the overrepresentation of water signs Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces in the Senate as a whole and especially among the Democrats. Almost equally strong is the leaning of Taureans and Aquarians to the Republicans. Oddities about states: both Hawaii Senators are Virgos, both Floridians are Scorpios, both Arkansans are Leos (like our Arkie president) and both Wyoming Senators are Aquarians. Further analysis invited. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 97 12:43:44 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Beating Tom and Kym to the punch Message-ID: <199709191643.MAA10498@leo.vsla.edu> While I wouldn't want to introduce political partisanship on netsfg, where it's never raised its head, theos-l has long since been a battleground. Herewith my predictions of responses from two of our esteemed regulars. Tom: Whaddya expect from a bunch of lily-livered, mollycoddlin', soft on crime, drug addicted, collectivist water signs? Of course they're Democrats. And of course freedom-loving, intelligent Aquarians and hard-working, salt of the earth Taureans are Republicans. Kym: Whaddya expect from a bunch of materialistic, stick-in-the-mud Taureans and ideological fanatical irresponsible Aquarians but to disregard the needs of the less fortunate and vote Republican? Of course sensitive, understanding, good-hearted water signs vote Democrat. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:28:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Digest 1246 Message-ID: <970919132645_-397740153@emout13.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-19 05:39:17 EDT, you write: >For Chuck: to my way of thinking, karma, like gravity, manifests whenever >and in whatever way it can ... and, like gravity, it doesn't require anyone's >belief in order to do so. With respect to your view about "getting away with >it," I sincerely urge you not to rely too heavily on that idea. Everybody >makes mistakes ... and that includes Chuck the Heretic. > But gravity is a readily observable phenomenon. It always works the same way no matter what. If I drop a safe out of 16 stroy window, it is going to squish whomever is walking underneath it no matter what kind of life that person has led and conversley, if I jump off a roof but am wearing a parachute I will probably land safely no matter what sins I committed the day before. As far as getting away with things and karma, remember that Stalin died peacefully on his couch, Mao died peacefully in bed, Ghenghis Khan died peacefully in bed and Atilla the Hun died happily on his wedding night. Karma is a load of bull, a combination of the greed of priests and the desire of fools to think that the universe really cares about their petty ideas of justice. When the sun goes nova, the just and the unjust shall fry alike. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:45:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <970919134254_1785479564@emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-19 10:45:54 EDT, you write: > >Is there anybody who might even be able to find a proper translation >of the sanskrit word? > In it's original form, it meant nothing more than the proper performance of rituals. It's practical meaning changed during the period directly following the indo-eurpean conquest and probably as a result of a power struggle between the priest caste and the warrior caste. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:07:37 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: A Perfect Universe--Hardly. Message-ID: <199709200019.UAA18679@NetGSI.com> The following are a few quick replies to Dennis who likes to think that we live in a perfect universe with a nice perfect God governing things. In this Dennis is a bit like Einstein, and so he has a lot of good company. However, I just can't believe our universe is any more perfect than I am. I don't want an argument here, but I would like to present my own view of this rather fascinating topic. >Wow! Where shall I begin to defend "The Perfect Universe?" I guess with >Jerry because his post is easily addressed. Jerry, when you ascribe karmic >acceptance to the higher, i.e. mental planes we can find some basis for >agreement. I particularly liked your analogy that ran "if I am cut I will >bleed" ... because that is precisely what you will do and it matters not one >whit whether you "accept" the cut or not! I deliberately put this in terms of the mental plane for ease of understanding. However, the truth is that "as above so below" and any principle true on one plane is true on the others as well. However, in the physical world it just isn't as easy to understand. Let you just remind you of the time when a maniac came to Jesus with the intent of harming him. When Jesus looked into his eyes with universal love and compassion, the man melted and went meekly away. Mary Baker Eddy once wrote that "Clad in the panoply of love, human hatred cannot reach you." This is what I mean when I say that you don't have to accept someone else's karma. When I drive a car down the highway, I sometimes say a prayer that all those other drivers who want to crash into something, or animals who want to run out in front of a car, pick another car than mine because I don't really need their karma on my shoulders. >And if you should happen to fall from >the same height 10,000 times, you will still accelerate at precisely the same >rate for precisely the same length of time. Why? Because the universe is >perfect, that's why. The laws of physics are invariable --- at least on this >plane of existence. Your statement is simply not true. If you measure the rates, as closely as you want to, you will get a range of values, never ever all the same numbers. What you are really saying here is that the acceleration constant g is always the same, but I need to remind you that g does not exist on the physical plane--it is not a "thing" but rather an idea or principle. Absolutely nothing physical is perfect, else Buddhism and Theosophy are a lot of hot air. >the only conclusion I can draw from it is that the fact (and at >the present time it IS a fact) that some events at the sub-atomic level are >not predictable only proves that at our present level of understanding about >particle physics we can't predict them. It does not prove that they will >never be predictable. Wrong again, although many people think the same way. It has been proved that the Uncertainty Principle is always in effect, and that no matter how carefully or perfectly you measure, you will never be able to predict speed (motion) if you know location (space) or vice versa. The Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with our level of understanding or our ability to measure carefully. It is a fact--nothing is 100% predictable on the physical plane. When we focus our attention in one room of our house, we cannot know what is going on in another room during that time. It is a fact of life; one that I refer to as a Ring-Pass-Not because it tends to bound our possible activities. >but I choose to agree with Albert Einstein who once >remarked: "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the universe." Quantum theory has reined supreme over Einstein--As Bohr once remarked, "God does play with dice." Virtually every physicist has acknowledged this. The real question is, What does this mean in terms of karma and reincarnation? I think it means that there is a small amount of uncertainty in causation. Even Jung realized this, and he and Pauli worked out synchronicity as an acausal principle to account for this uncertainty. Karma simply does not account for everything than happens (sometimes we fall victim to collective karma rather than our personal karma--which I often call the Chaos Factor because it comes to us from outside ourselves and there is little we can do about it). >You show me someone who is indifferent to the >welfare of others (and I know that if we were in India together you could >point out a LOT of it) ... and I'll show you someone who does NOT believe in >karma and reincarnation and it doen't much matter that they vigorously >protest otherwise. By their fruits ... . Compassion or indifference have nothing at all to do with karma and reincarnation. On the other hand, they have everything to do with them. I have met people who believed in reincarnation, who were prejudice against black people. They felt that the white race was older and thus superior. This kind of mis-understanding also occurs with sex, and some say that the male is superior to the female and that if a women is good in this life she will come back next time as a man. Karma and reincarnation can be interpreted many ways and it easy to use them as rationale for prejudice or indifference. Just a few thoughts on a difficult subject. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 20:10:37 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Karma Message-ID: <199709200019.UAA18684@NetGSI.com> >I guess my point is: if we can really say that we all get what we deserve, >how can we then judge those who are part of fulfilling the lessons of karma? Kym, a very good question indeed. I try not to judge people, though I may judge their behaviors. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:11:00 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Baghavan Das Message-ID: <3uNMiHAUSxI0Ew8$@nellie2.demon.co.uk> I have uploaded to the website below the file Hinducol.txt (41,395 bytes) being an *expose* of Annie Besant and the Esoteric Section of the T.S. [Adyar] vis-a-vis the Central Hindu College in India in 1913. Bhagavan Das was formerly the General Secretary of the Indian Section of the T.S. The file is in the HISTORY sub-directory under the DIRECTORY heading. (Click on DIRECTORY, the HISTORY) Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:31:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Digest 1246 Message-ID: In message <970919053807_438873340@emout01.mail.aol.com>, DSArthur@aol.com writes >For Alan: your brief post was a little confusing. You suggest that you >don't believe in karma ... and then follow up immediately with the comment >that "there ain't no free lunch." IMHO that is the very essence of karma. "Free lunches" are paid for in *this* life. IMHO that is the very essence of karma! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:33:52 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Beating Tom and Kym to the punch Message-ID: I am Taurus. If I were American I would vote Democrat ... Sort that out ... Alan :-) In message <199709191643.MAA10498@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes > >While I wouldn't want to introduce political partisanship on >netsfg, where it's never raised its head, theos-l has long >since been a battleground. Herewith my predictions of >responses from two of our esteemed regulars. > >Tom: Whaddya expect from a bunch of lily-livered, >mollycoddlin', soft on crime, drug addicted, collectivist >water signs? Of course they're Democrats. And of course >freedom-loving, intelligent Aquarians and hard-working, salt of >the earth Taureans are Republicans. > >Kym: Whaddya expect from a bunch of materialistic, >stick-in-the-mud Taureans and ideological fanatical >irresponsible Aquarians but to disregard the needs of the >less fortunate and vote Republican? Of course sensitive, >understanding, good-hearted water signs vote Democrat. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 01:42:07 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: In message , Nicole Suter writes >I guess there is nothing wrong with the word "karma" at all, but >large amounts of how it is understood or has been misused for. Dear Nicole, My own thoughts exactly. I am hoping to write a piece on this in the near future. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:34:31 -0400 From: jim meier Subject: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <199709200934_MC2-211F-DCA8@compuserve.com> A recent thread on theos-l was on rules, and whether there are any. The majority opinion here seems to be no, with a few posters strongly expressing sentiments once summed as "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." This reminded me of some posts I once traded with Jerry Schueler, where our disagreements finally boiled down to the definitions of the terms we were using (magic and meditation, at the time). I wonder if the same thing doesn't happen with "Rules." There are a number of references in THE SECRET DOCTRINE to Rules but in the context that theos-l posters were using the term, I think a more accurate definition can be found in the Bailey writings, in discussion of the definitions and distinctions between Laws, Rules, and Orders or commandments. In those writings, Laws are simply the "ways of the universe," the expression of the life purpose of the Greater Existence of which we are a part. "Law" conveys the idea of subjection to something recognized as unstoppable and undeviating, whether understood or not by the one who is subjected to it. Orders (or commandments) are given by men, issued by those in a dominating position of authority or otherwise able in some way to enforce their wishes. Rules, however, are different. They are the result of tried experience, of ages-long undertakings, and they evoke from those for whom they are intended an intuitional response. We choose to follow them, or we choose not to. So, in these definitions, what most posters here spoke of as "rules" would be "orders," and then I agree that they are almost entirely useless. Somebody brought up gravity as an example of Law, and it is certainly a physical law -- as theosophists, do we believe there are spiritual laws? That's a bit off the subject, since the point I wanted to make was that "Rules" mean, to many people, the "Rules of Yoga" as outlined in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras [many translations, including the Quest book THE SCIENCE OF YOGA by I.K.Taimni]. The fundamental idea of Yoga is that there is "something" greater than the lesser self or personality, and that there exists a time-proven method for integrating the personality with that "greater something" (soul, causal ego, pick your favorite term). Those Rules (meditation, purification, right breathing and the rest), when followed, take us beyond our present limitations. One line of reasoning in the recent thread was that "there are no rules, there are no maps, the name of the game is you're on your own," which is directly contrary to Yoga. Many of the early theosophists were raja yoga students, and I think Krishnamurti's "pathless land" was a rejection of the Theosophical Society of his time, not of the Rules given by Patanjali for bringing the light of the soul into the day-to-day consciousness. Jim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:56:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <970920125526_-1498782147@emout14.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-20 09:36:25 EDT, you write: >One line of reasoning in the recent thread was that "there are no rules, >there are no maps, the name of the game is you're on your own," which is >directly contrary to Yoga. That is probably true, but for those of us who don't do yoga it doesn't matter very much. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:57:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <970920125621_929083818@emout17.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-20 09:36:25 EDT, you write: >One line of reasoning in the recent thread was that "there are no rules, >there are no maps, the name of the game is you're on your own," which is >directly contrary to Yoga. That is probably true, but for those of us who aren't into Yoga it doesn't matter very much. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 12:04:46 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970920170446.012ea9ac@mail.eden.com> At 09:35 AM 9/20/97 -0400, jim meier wrote: >I think Krishnamurti's "pathless land" was a rejection of the >Theosophical Society of his time, not of the Rules given by Patanjali for >bringing the light of the soul into the day-to-day consciousness. > >Jim Krishnamurti's stand was that no organization can bring one to Truth, thus rejecting *all* organizations including TS. Since the time of "Truth is a pathless land" statement in I believe 1926, he never changed his stand till he died in 1986. He also rejected all systems and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras was not an exception. I am quoting all this from my recollection. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 11:53:33 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Karma and "blaming the victim" Message-ID: <199709201753.LAA23959@mailmx.micron.net> Titus wrote: >Hey, purple poo is necessary a part of life - at least as long as we have >beets. Well! From my point of view, beets are a lovely and rich burgundy color. They, do, however, resemble purple poo in the taste department. So. . .you say purple beets. . .I say burgundy beets. And, wonders the Bear of Enormous Brain, "There might be another way of coming down these stairs besides bumping, but. . .maybe there isn't." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:04:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970920150217_553894693@emout12.mail.aol.com> The biggest problem in dealing with the idea of karma in the context of the Theosophical Society is the lack of understanding of the time In which the TS adopted it. You have to remember that these were VICTORIANS and they had a very particular view of the world that we of the end of the 20th century simply do not share becuase our experiences are so much different. First, good victorians had a real problem with doubt. Now that make no sense to us at all, because we have a problem with people who don't doubt. We consider them to be idiots or new agers or worse. The good victorian, on the other hand lived in a world of certainties and when one certainty bit the dust he had to run off and find a new one real quick or develop one of those complexes that that odd Dr. Freud was talking about and betake himself to an alienist. Well, the victorians found themselves with a serious problem becuase one of their most cherished certainties, the concept of eternal damnation for anyone who did not behave like a good victorian was heading for the dustbin of history. This created a serious problem, because if people did not have something to be afraid of, they might start doing all sorts of terrible things, like having sex and drinking. Again, pretty silly stuff to us, but not to them. To the victorians this was serious business. The Theosophists figured they had the solution. They stole the idea of karma from the Orient and put their own little gloss on it in the hope that it would inspire people to act like good victorians and give up sex and meat and drink only temperance beverages. Fortunately for civilization, they failed. Because not only was hell delivered to the trash bin, but no one with any sense bought into the karma thing either. (One of the features of second-stage Theosophists, 1900-1930, is that they seemed totally bereft of any common sense.) They were too busy having fun. Freed of the shackles of one superstition, they were not about to adopt another one. The other problem with the victorians was they had an idea of law that is peculiar to their time. They thought of law in near mystical terms, something that transcended mortals, only in spiritual, but in temporal terms. They took the idea of immutable laws of physics (like our old friend gravity) and extrapolated onto human society and the spiritual realm as well. This was, of course, a reaction to the still remembered time of absolute human monarchy and the divine Tyrant of Israel. So when our older Theosophists adopted karma, they put that notion onto it. Now we don't view law that way at all. First, we know only too well that the laws of nature are far from immutable and there are always methods for getting around them even though that may take some work. Second, we know that human legislators are no better than monarchs, being just as corrupt, venal and stupid. Law is not something we take very seriously as a philosophical concept any more. Rather than affirm its majesty, as the victorians did, we do anything we can to subvert it and render it impotent. So when faced with an idea such as karma and then having it presented as a law, our instinctive reaction (as a society) is not embrasure but revulsion in varying degrees depending upon our life experiences. We just don't view law as a good thing. It is at best a necessary evil that given the right circumstances all of us will work to get around. What all this means is that the idea of karma has found itself caught in a cultural trap and that is why all the attempts to explain and justify it. It is not enough to merely assert it, as our victorians would. It has to be defined and explained and examples given. The only problem is that there are no examples of it that anyone can see, so the only resort is argument by analogy, but the analogies don't work very well either. The final fallback position is argument by authority, but authority has to be accepted and that is one huge weakness. You don't try to persuade a Baptist by referring to a Papal encyclical because he doesn't care what the Pope thinks. So what we have with karma is this ancient idea cobbled together to control a society that was adopted in the vain hope of controlling another that cannot be proven and is impossible to explain in any coherint fashion and which cannot be enforced upon anyone. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 15:05:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Authority Message-ID: <970920150330_419703461@emout14.mail.aol.com> The problem of source in spiritual matters is fundamentally a problem of authority, or lack thereof. As a spiritual concept generally cannot be proven by any conventional means (there is no way to set up controlled experiments to see if there is a heaven, for example) the only strength any such concept will have will lie with those who happen to promulgate it and those who believe it. This creates a difficulty that is not easily overcome. One may quote Patanjali until one's ears take on the appearance of a donkey's but that will have no affect on someone who considers Patanjali nothing but an ancient old bore. Krishnamurti tried to solve the problem by saying that all spiritual truth came from within and that teachings were a waste of time and then spent the rest of his life teaching people. This naturally causes Krishnamurti to be viewed with some suspicion. So what we are left with is a panoply of individual choice. One may accept the teachings of Jesus, or one may reject them. One may consider the Eightfold Path to be Noble, or one may simply view it as hopelessly dumb. Acceptance or rejection lies in the hearer, not in the speaker. There is no power to enforce belief and much ability to ignore any teaching with impunity. Now, if we add to that the fact that people's reactions to ideas changes with time, the mix gets even muddier. For example, the arguments against non-marital sex were the same in 1973 as in 1963 but by 1973 no one was listening anymore and those who repeated the same old preachings were left in the dust. In fact, the rejection of the old moral arguments has become so total now that they are rarely ever heard outside of certain religious circles. Given that, it is impossible to maintain any authority based system outside of a relatively small body of believers, at least in the West. People may hang around religions for a lot of reasons, but rarely do they let the teachings interfere with their daily lives. The Pope can draw huge crowds, but no one in those crowds stops practicing birth control. Given this rejection of authority as normative in our culture, it means that no argument based on it can succeed with a broad spectrum of people. The only source that is of value is that found within the individual and no others need apply. The result is that spiritual systems must compete with each other in the marketplace of ideas, none having any greater claim upon truth than any other, no matter what each may say and hope that they can at least attract enough followers to put up a nice temple somewhere, but as far as controlling folks is concerned, that is simply not going to happen. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:11:07 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Digest 1247 Message-ID: <970920170849_-1965785807@emout20.mail.aol.com> For Titus: "Amen" to your insightful comments in Digest 1247 ... with one exception. When you said: [concerning his decision to betray Christ], I cannot agree that this is a valid excuse. As a Perfect Universe proponent, I find myself obligated to contend that we are always responsible for our choices (that is what "Free Will" is all about). But with responsibility goes authority. That is why the Law (in this context, karmic law) conveys to each of us the capability (authority) to determine our own future ... and holds each of us account-able (responsible) for whatever ensues from the choices that we make. Always bear in mind that, while the karmic wheels may at times seem to grind exceedingly slowly, they also grind exceedingly fine (are you listening, Chuck the Heretic?). Oh yes, as a student of the Bible I am well aware of Matthew 5:45. But I maintain that Jesus was referring to the single lifetime of each of his listeners (who in all probability simply would not have understood or accepted any reference to a larger (and longer) scheme of things). Certainly, over the near-term, the verse squares nicely with our own experience. But perhaps it is a little like having a contractor promise you a beautiful home "soon." So, a week or two later, you go out to the building site and quickly decide the contractor lied to you. After all, there is metal scaffolding all over the place, the wall studding and electrical wiring is exposed and drywall "mud" is splattered on the concrete slab, etc.. In general, your home looks terrible and you certainly wouldn't care to live there. On the other hand, I believe we can both agree that, if you wait awhile (say, two months instead of two weeks), to go out to the site, you will encounter the beautiful home that the contractor promised. Thus, if I could revise Matthew 5:45 just a little (and I can hear a million voices shouting: "well, sport, you CAN'T"), I would have it read, in part: ... and he seemeth to send rain on the just and on the unjust. For, over the short-term, in many cases that is exactly the way things seem to be. But I contend that, over the long-term (possibly, as Doss pointed out, as long as a manvantara or two), rain falls on the unjust ... and only sunlight falls on the just. In a Perfect Universe it cannot be otherwise. For Drpsionic: See my comments to Titus (above). In my view you are making the common mistake of considering far too short a time-span when you formulate your views about the universe. You said (in Digest 1247): <... remember that Stalin died peacefully on his couch ...>. And I say: indeed he did (even though a few Historians have speculated that a pillow placed firmly over his face hastened the process a little). I consider an instance such as this one to be quite ironic because it results in "C the H" proclaiming in this lifetime: "See? He got away with it" ... while in some future lifetime the entity known in this lifetime as Stalin may possibly proclaim: "Why is all this S-----tuff happening to me? I can't possibly deserve it! Boy, this universe really SUCKS!!" And it may be that both of you need further enlightenment. For Jerry: reference your interesting comments in Digest 1247, there is a very subtle (yet valid) principle in play here. To use an analogy: what if I were to say to you: "Jerry, I have a perfect car; go see for yourself." So you go and drive it for awhile and, after you return, you say to me: "Wow, you really are full of it when you try to tell me that your car is perfect! I just got through driving it ... and the steering is too stiff, the transmission grinds a little on occasion and three of your tires are badly worn although the fourth one looks great. So where do you get off telling me your car is perfect?" And I reply as gently as I can: "Jerry, Jerry, don't you see? The steering is stiff because this is an old car and the steering shaft is in need of lubrication. The transmission grinds now and then because one of the bearings is excessively worn and this permits two of the gear cogs to clash. As for the tires, three of them have 80,000 miles on them and the fourth one is practically new. I just bought it two days ago. So, given these conditions, none of them mysterious or supernatural, my car is in exactly the condition that it should be in. It PERFECTLY displays in every aspect what it should display. On the other hand, if it was not a perfect vehicle, you might well have discovered that the steering and transmission were fine but the new tire was badly worn while the other three with 80,000 miles on them looked brand new. When I tell you that my car is perfect I don't mean that you will necessarily like what you learn about it. What I mean is that it perfectly displays (no more and no less) all of the attributes that it should, given the laws of the universe which are, themselves, perfect." With regard to your other concerns vis-a-vis a Perfect Universe, I have in times past shared those concerns ... and found answers for many of them (although, being human, it is at least possible that some of my answers are wrong). Obviously, it would take far too long to try and address each of them in this post so I will just offer this piece of advise: Careful, Jerry, a wise man once said: "never say never." Oh well, perhaps I will try to answer just ONE (out of deference to those on this list who may find themselves thinking "enough of karma, already"). You said (in Digest 1247): . I reply: I believe you are mistaken, Jerry. Karma does (and must) account for everything that happens. But personal karma, being much more limited in scope, does not (and often can not). There is an interesting Biblical verse (Genesis 4:9) wherein Cain asks God: "... am I my brother's keeper?" Since God elected not to answer Cain directly I will be so bold as to do so (no flames, please). "Yes, Cain, you ARE your brother's keeper ... and so is everybody else!" For, in the grand scheme of things (yes, I know, "there you go again," Dennis, with your Perfect Universe assertion), I have met the enemy (i.e. everything else) ... and it is ME! Thus, if I am indeed my brother's keeper, it must follow as the night the day that I am also responsible for my brother's karma --- at least in a collective sense. Now everybody relax. With considerable restraint I shall refrain from launching into a long (because it is very complicated) explanation concerning the interrelationship of personal and group karma except to state that there definitely is one. But back to you, Jerry, I believe it is wrong to think there is "little we can do about it." Oh yes, all of us who happen to be in incarnation just now must operate within clearly limiting physical parameters (ex: if you don't have a million dollars it is obviously impossible for you to make a personal contribution of a million dollars to your favorite charity). But within the parameters, whether they be great or small, you can do as much or as little as you like. We shall bear the ultimate responsibility in either case. So much for "indifference", right Kym? Again, NAMASTE to all. This has been an enlightening discussion of karma and its many ramifications. Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:01:03 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Beating Tom and Kym to the punch Message-ID: <199709202201.QAA20369@mailmx.micron.net> Paul wrote: >Herewith my predictions of >responses from two of our esteemed regulars. >Kym: Whaddya expect from a bunch of materialistic, >stick-in-the-mud Taureans and ideological fanatical >irresponsible Aquarians but to disregard the needs of the >less fortunate and vote Republican? Of course sensitive, >understanding, good-hearted water signs vote Democrat. And a big "Thank You" for smooshing me into the same boat as Tombo. And for taking the words right out of my mouth - what am I going to do with the rest of my life now? But don't you worry about me, Paul. . .I'll survive. . .somehow. Just go ahead and have a very comfy good night's sleep. . . Kym P.S. Seriously, your astrological information on the Senate is very interesting. Thanks. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 16:23:16 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709202323.QAA17983@palrel1.hp.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > The biggest problem in dealing with the idea of karma in the context of the > Theosophical Society is the lack of understanding of the time In which the TS > adopted it. You have to remember that these were VICTORIANS and they had a > very particular view of the world that we of the end of the 20th century > simply do not share becuase our experiences are so much different. If it is the sowing and reaping interpretation of karma that you object to, that appeared in Eastern and Western writings before and after the Victorian era. Regardless of who is right, I don't think you can say with certainty that that influenced HPB's interpretation. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:28:45 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Digest 1247 Message-ID: In message <970920170849_-1965785807@emout20.mail.aol.com>, DSArthur@aol.com writes >Now everybody relax. Relaxing .... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:49:19 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Digest 1246 Message-ID: <199709210007.UAA04022@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Digest 1246 > Date: Friday, September 19, 1997 12:29 PM > > When the sun goes nova, the just and the unjust shall fry alike. > After all, they're all just characters in the story. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:33:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Digest 1247 Message-ID: <970920232039_612755808@emout15.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-20 17:17:13 EDT, you write: >while in some future lifetime >the entity known in this lifetime as Stalin may possibly proclaim: "Why is >all this S-----tuff happening to me? I can't possibly deserve it! Boy, this >universe really SUCKS!!" And it may be that both of you need further >enlightenment. Or it may be that he will come back rich and happy. You have no way of proving one way or the other. This life is the only one we really can ever know about. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 00:52:19 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Lesson 2: God's favorite foods Message-ID: <199709210652.AAA11513@mailmx.micron.net> Dennis wrote: >There is an interesting Biblical verse (Genesis 4:9) wherein Cain >asks God: "... am I my brother's keeper?" Since God elected not to answer >Cain directly I will be so bold as to do so (no flames, please). "Yes, Cain, >you ARE your brother's keeper ... and so is everybody else!" "No flames," he says. Well, then, a question - does putting words in "God's mouth" in order to prove a point fall into the category of. . .well. . .cheating? And, I never did get that "Cain and Abel" story. Why was God ticked off at Cain? Cain brought the fruit of his harvest to God, just as his brother Abel brought meat from his flock. Cain wasn't being naughty or selfish; there's no mention of Cain bringing a small amount or rotten fruit, or anything like that. All I can figure is, maybe, God didn't like fruits and vegetables (I can see where God is coming from there). However, God didn't need to get so rude to Cain. If I was Cain, I'd have been peeved also. I'm not saying Cain should have slew Abel - that was terrible. But this is another story that, to me, makes God look, yet again, like a loon. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 07:50:53 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Senatorial astrology (fwd) Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970921075053.00ba2134@pacbell.net> At 12:17 PM 9/19/97 -0400, Paul wrote: >Of the 94 whose sun signs I could identify, there are: >12 Cancers (9D,4R) >11 Scorpios (7D,4R) >10 Pisces (6D,4R) >9 Virgos (5D,4R) >9 Aquarians (7R,2D) >9 Taureans (7R,2D) >8 Sagittarians (5R,3D) >7 Capricorns (4R,3D) >6 Librans (4R,2D) >5 Aries (4R,1D) >5 Leos (3D,2R) >4 Geminis (2D,2R) The only tie-- how appropriate! > >Disparity in party affiliation by signs is more apparent when >we note that the Democrats number 7 Cancers, 7 Scorpios, 6 >Pisces, 3 Capricorns, 3 Sagittarians, 3 Leos, 2 Taureans, 2 >Geminis, 2 Libras, 1 Aries. Whereas the Republicans number 7 >Taureans, 7 Aquarians, 5 Sagittarians, 4 each for Aries, >Cancer, Virgo, Libra, Capricorn, and Pisces, 2 each for Geminis >and Leos. > >Preliminary comments: Most striking is the overrepresentation >of water signs Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces in the Senate as a >whole and especially among the Democrats. Almost equally >strong is the leaning of Taureans and Aquarians to the >Republicans. > >Oddities about states: both Hawaii Senators are Virgos, both >Floridians are Scorpios, both Arkansans are Leos (like our >Arkie president) and both Wyoming Senators are Aquarians. > >Further analysis invited. Hi Paul, It's also interesting to break these down by mode: cardinal, fixed, or mutable. Cardinal = 15D/16R Fixed = 14D/20R Mutable = 16D/15R For cardinal and mutable modes it's a near tie between the parties, but the heavy predominance of Republicans in fixed signs may be statistically significant. (This is the result of the cluster of Republicans you mentioned in Taurus and Aquarius, you mentioned, as both are fixed signs.) When taking all of the senators in each mode, the cardinal and mutable modes are each tied at 31 and fixed comes out ahead at 34. BTW, you meant that you didn't use the birthdates for four senators, didn't you? We have info here for 96 (31+31+34) senators and last I knew the total number of senators was 100. (I'm still trying to figure out how we're off by two instead of one because the only discrepancy between our figures I can find is that there are 13 Cancers, not 12.) ;-D Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 08:12:15 -0700 From: techndex@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Digest 1247 Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970921081215.00ba61a4@pacbell.net> At 05:16 PM 9/20/97 -0400, Dennis wrote: > But personal karma, being much more limited in scope, does not (and often >can not). There is an interesting Biblical verse (Genesis 4:9) wherein Cain >asks God: "... am I my brother's keeper?" Since God elected not to answer >Cain directly I will be so bold as to do so (no flames, please). "Yes, Cain, >you ARE your brother's keeper ... and so is everybody else!" >For, in the grand scheme of things (yes, I know, "there you go again," >Dennis, with your Perfect Universe assertion), I have met the enemy (i.e. >everything else) ... and it is ME! Thus, if I am indeed my brother's keeper, >it must follow as the night the day that I am also responsible for my >brother's karma --- at least in a collective sense. Now everybody relax. > With considerable restraint I shall refrain from launching into a long >(because it is very complicated) explanation concerning the interrelationship >of personal and group karma except to state that there definitely is one. Dennis, This is intriguing. Would you agree that perhaps collective karma limits and governs the operation of personal karma (and probably even the timing of it)? In other words, nothing can happen on the level of personal karma that is not within what is possible under collective karma. Just a thought. Lynn *********************************** Lynn Moncrief (techndex@pacbell.net) TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing *********************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 08:01:44 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709220006.UAA23356@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Saturday, September 20, 1997 2:05 PM > >snip< > > So what we have with karma is this ancient idea cobbled together to control a > society that was adopted in the vain hope of controlling another that cannot > be proven and is impossible to explain in any coherint fashion and which > cannot be enforced upon anyone. > As far as I can see, the Victorianism still is a apart of TSA. It certainly is in the acceptance of CWL and other writers, who are out of tune with the times. People are give books that seem to be from 1890 and asked to study them. The TSA has had a hard task in updating this material, if it ever can. What really gets me, is when the TS keeps yelling it has nothing to do with the "New Age", as if this sanitizes them from the crazies of today. What about the crazies of yesterday that were quite evident in TS? It's as if they were damning themselves by saying "we're the Old Age." A. SAfron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 19:03:11 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <199709220006.UAA23381@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga > Date: Saturday, September 20, 1997 12:07 PM > > At 09:35 AM 9/20/97 -0400, jim meier wrote: > > >I think Krishnamurti's "pathless land" was a rejection of the > >Theosophical Society of his time, not of the Rules given by Patanjali for > >bringing the light of the soul into the day-to-day consciousness. > > > >Jim > > Krishnamurti's stand was that no organization can bring one to Truth, thus > rejecting *all* organizations including TS. IMHO he was rejecting the TS at that point in time. It was getting pretty wild with CWL running around in a purple dress, initiations being handed out willy-nilly, and everyone expecting K to give them enlightenment. No wonder he ran for hills. If he did reject "all" organizations, it was on the basis of what he'd already experienced. A. SAfron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:13:29 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: Digest 1247 Message-ID: On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 techndex@pacbell.net wrote: > > But personal karma, being much more limited in scope, does not (and often > >can not). There is an interesting Biblical verse (Genesis 4:9) wherein Cain > >(because it is very complicated) explanation concerning the interrelationship > >of personal and group karma except to state that there definitely is one. > > Dennis, > > This is intriguing. Would you agree that perhaps collective karma limits > and governs the operation of personal karma (and probably even the timing > of it)? In other words, nothing can happen on the level of personal karma > that is not within what is possible under collective karma. Just a thought. > > Lynn I remember having a conversation about this with someone on the list many months ago. I don't remember if anyone agreed on anything, but I have a few ideas of my own. I have to agree with Dennis' theory on the existence of both a personal and collective karma. Collective karma is fairly easy to understand on a physical level, and a good allegory is: If you are unkind to one person, they will be more likely to be unkind to others, and those others will do likewise. On a karmic level, the results of all acts are thrown into a collective pool, both negative and positive. By results, I mean negative or positive. Now, I don't believe that karma stores causes. In other words, collective karma is quite simply a pool of negative and positive energies. Now one might say, "A negative effect is relative to personal circumstance". That is where personal karma steps in. As it is now, I think I can safely say that if such a karmic pool exists, there is a hell of a lot more negative evergy in it than positive. Even the happiest do-gooders in the world aren't going to live perfect lives. As I said many months ago, even Jesus had birdcrap on his shoulder every now and then, I'm sure. On top of that, Jesus was not a happy man. That didn't make things any better for him. I'll do my best to explain my ideas of interrelationship between personal and collective karma, but I doubt that they will leave anyone without questions that I cannot answer. If a person has negative feelings at one point in time, s/he is going to attract negative karma, and because the collective is so negative in itself, it doesn't take much to attract it. In this way, the karmic pool is a magnifier of personal energy. But this, unfortunately isn't always the case. If a person is being positive, it is very unlikely that s/he will recieve positive influence from the karmic pool, because of the dwindling of positive energy within it. If s/he does happen do attract some of that positive energy, s/he could win the lottery, or find the love of his/her life. But usually, I feel that a really happy person will have a fairly normal day, perhaps devoid of any negative influence, as long as the happiness doesn't go away. In this way, it is possible that s/he is still attracting negative energy, but not nearly as much, and his/her own personal energy is counteracting the collective energy. ugh...I had more to say but I have other things to do... perhaps I'll finish up later...toodles. --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:53:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970922005321_876758870@emout02.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-21 20:06:48 EDT, you write: > >What really gets me, is when the TS keeps yelling it has nothing to do with >the "New Age", as if this sanitizes them from the crazies of today. What >about the crazies of yesterday that were quite evident in TS? > >It's as if they were damning themselves by saying "we're the Old Age." > >A. SAfron Well, if last Thursday's program at Olcott was any indication, the New Age crazies are in there now. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 04:16:08 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: membership information Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970922091608.00d07048@mail.eden.com> At 01:05 AM 9/22/97 -0400, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: >In message <33FCA47D.1483@iden.net>, jaysenter writes >>Hello - Id like to possibly become a member. Im going to be >>travelling around the world soon and id like to have to have some >>theosophical contacts to look up as i go (excuse punctuation). >> >>jsand51@rocketmail.com >> >>Thank you >>Jeff > >Jeff lives in Nashville, and will welcome any messages either diect or >through the ti-l mailing list. > >Alan >--------- It is a wonderful idea. Theosophists are there in most countries and are a wonderful contact. I highly encourage you to become a member. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 04:23:23 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Digest 1247 Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970922092323.00d02e90@mail.eden.com> At 11:15 AM 9/21/97 -0400, techndex@pacbell.net wrote: >Dennis, > >This is intriguing. Would you agree that perhaps collective karma limits >and governs the operation of personal karma (and probably even the timing >of it)? In other words, nothing can happen on the level of personal karma >that is not within what is possible under collective karma. Just a thought. > >Lynn > Lynn: It looks like your reasoning is right. However one has to always to keep in mind that there are always exceptions to the rules. My 2 cents worth. ......doss From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 07:51:49 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709221253.IAA09498@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Sunday, September 21, 1997 11:54 PM > > In a message dated 97-09-21 20:06:48 EDT, you write: > > > > >What really gets me, is when the TS keeps yelling it has nothing to do with > >the "New Age", as if this sanitizes them from the crazies of today. What > >about the crazies of yesterday that were quite evident in TS? > > > >It's as if they were damning themselves by saying "we're the Old Age." > > > >A. SAfron > > Well, if last Thursday's program at Olcott was any indication, the New Age > crazies are in there now. > Really? I can see them rushing in with their crystals, led by Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson and any other New Age hucksters. Will they paint over those old murals or declare them some kind of monuments? How about the library? Will TSA abandon, for the most part, CWL and Wedgewood, get rid of the antiquated Liberal Catholic Church (which seems to be mostly copied from the Anglican church). Reform the (shhhecret) Masons. Open up to astral projection, lucid dreaming, scientific testing and debate? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:31:05 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: Karma Message-ID: To Chuck: thank you for the original translation "proper performance of rituals ..." - it's a great help! To Alan: I am already today interested in that piece ... Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:33:07 -0500 (CDT) From: "m.k. ramadoss" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: Was Deepak Chopra one of those in the program? ...doss On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, A. Safron wrote: > ---------- > > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > > Date: Sunday, September 21, 1997 11:54 PM > > > > In a message dated 97-09-21 20:06:48 EDT, you write: > > > > > > > >What really gets me, is when the TS keeps yelling it has nothing to do with > > >the "New Age", as if this sanitizes them from the crazies of today. What > > >about the crazies of yesterday that were quite evident in TS? > > > > > >It's as if they were damning themselves by saying "we're the Old Age." > > > > > >A. SAfron > > > > Well, if last Thursday's program at Olcott was any indication, the New Age > > crazies are in there now. > > > Really? I can see them rushing in with their crystals, led by Deepak Chopra, > Marianne Williamson and any other New Age hucksters. Will they paint over > those old murals or declare them some kind of monuments? How about the > library? Will TSA abandon, for the most part, CWL and Wedgewood, get rid > of the antiquated Liberal Catholic Church (which seems to be mostly copied > from the Anglican church). Reform the (shhhecret) Masons. Open up to > astral projection, lucid dreaming, scientific testing and debate? > > A. Safron > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:18:36 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Digest 1249 Message-ID: <970922131752_520780558@emout07.mail.aol.com> For Alan: Great ... just don't relax too much or for so long that you start to forget why you entered this incarnation in the first place. For "C the H": who wrote I reply: perhaps in your universe, Chuck ... but not in mine! Also, you quoted my statement (in Digest 1248): "... while in some future lifetime the entity known in this lifetime as Stalin may possibly proclaim: ' Why is all this S---tuff happening to me? I can't possibly deserve it! Boy, this universe really SUCKS!' And you wrote: I reply: you are quite correct, Chuck ... and I have no way of proving that, with further enlightenment, you will come to think very differently about this universe than you do now. But I believe it to be true, nevertheless. For Kym: who quoted my post (in Digest 1248) that read "There is an interesting Bible verse (Genesis 4:9) wherein Cain asks God: "Am I my brother's keeper?" And I added: "Since God elected not to answer Cain directly I will be so bold as to do so: yes, Cain, you ARE your brother's keeper ... and so is everybody else!" And you ask: <... well, then, a question --- does putting words in God's mouth to prove a point fall within the category of ... well ... cheating?> And I reply: no, Kym, on two counts. 1. It doesn't PROVE a point (for vigorous confirmation of this statement contact "C the H") and 2. "Putting words in God's mouth" is fairly standard practice in our society (I suspect you haven't been listening to many church sermons lately). With regard to your comment < ... and I never did get that "Cain and Abel" story>, I have heard some interesting explanations (yes, I know, Chuck, and NONE of them can be proved!). However, I won't expound on any of them in this post because Alan is still relaxing. For Lynn: who wrote (in digest 1249): <... would you agree that perhaps collective karma limits and governs the operation of personal karma (and probably the timing of it)? In other words, nothing can happen on the level of personal karma that is not within what is possible under collective karma. Just a thought.> And I reply: IMHO your thought was an excellent one, Lynn. After I read your post I thought immediately of that line in the delightful musical "My Fair Lady" in which Henry Higgins shouts about Eliza Dolittle: "I think she's got it; I THINK SHE'S GOT IT!!" NAMASTE, all --- Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:30:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970922132811_1652660486@emout03.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-22 09:00:02 EDT, you write: >Really? I can see them rushing in with their crystals, led by Deepak Chopra, >Marianne Williamson and any other New Age hucksters. Will they paint over >those old murals or declare them some kind of monuments? How about the >library? Will TSA abandon, for the most part, CWL and Wedgewood, get rid >of the antiquated Liberal Catholic Church (which seems to be mostly copied >from the Anglican church). Reform the (shhhecret) Masons. Open up to >astral projection, lucid dreaming, scientific testing and debate? > >A. Safron > No, they won't do anything near as sensible as that. What they will do is have models of THE PATTERN all over the frigging place and do silly dancing around them. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 13:33:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970922133114_-1531500538@emout11.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-22 12:34:15 EDT, you write: >Was Deepak Chopra one of those in the program? > >....doss No, it was much worse than him. Lynnclaire Dennis and the joys of oxygen starvation, or Better Living Through Brain Damage. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:36:46 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970922173646.0115092c@mail.eden.com> At 12:54 AM 9/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-09-21 20:06:48 EDT, you write: > >> >>What really gets me, is when the TS keeps yelling it has nothing to do with >>the "New Age", as if this sanitizes them from the crazies of today. What >>about the crazies of yesterday that were quite evident in TS? >> >>It's as if they were damning themselves by saying "we're the Old Age." >> >>A. SAfron > >Well, if last Thursday's program at Olcott was any indication, the New Age >crazies are in there now. > >Chuck the Heretic > If you are referring to the program based on the "near-death" experience, I am wondering what so special about it? Many are busy dealing with real life living with very little time or interest in near death matters. Fortunately Death ends all our personal problems. This is a fact. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:39:21 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970922173921.010faecc@mail.eden.com> At 01:34 PM 9/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-09-22 12:34:15 EDT, you write: > >>Was Deepak Chopra one of those in the program? >> >>....doss > >No, it was much worse than him. Lynnclaire Dennis and the joys of oxygen >starvation, or Better Living Through Brain Damage. > >Chuck the Heretic > Wonder how one goes about finding people like Lynnclaire, not to talk about those who willingly pay to attend the lectures. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:37:18 -0700 (MST) From: blafoun@azstarnet.com (Graye/Caldwell) Subject: K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of the Paranormal; or Methinks Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot" Message-ID: <199709221837.LAA03970@mailhost.azstarnet.com> K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of the Paranormal; or Methinks Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot" by Daniel H. Caldwell 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. Below are Johnson's comments. After his comments I quote the cases Johnson refers to. Please read these accounts and ask yourself which case appears to involve the paranormal? Which case shows elements of the paranormal? Compare these cases for yourself. Which case appears (to quote Johnson's own words) "more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits"? ***My own observations are at the end of this posting.*** Johnson's comments are as follows: ___________________________________________________ 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 of the Masters 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...." _____________________________________________________ Case E: MORYA COMES TO BOMBAY ON AUGUST 4, 1880 On August 4, 1880, Olcott writes that: ". . . a Mahatma visited H.P.B., and I was called in to see him before he left. He dictated a long and important letter to an influential friend of ours at Paris, and gave me important hints about the management of current Society affairs. I left him [the Mahatma] sitting in H.P.B.'s room...." [Old Diary Leaves, Volume II, 1972 printing, p. 208]" And Olcott's actual handwritten diary for August 4, 1880 reads: "M [orya] here this evening & wrote to Fauvety of Paris. He says 5000 English troops killed in Afghanistan in the recent battle. . . ." ________________________________________________________________ And the last case I cite is 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 any more paranormal elements to it than the Ooton Liatto account? _________________________________________________ Case F "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.) _________________________________________________ Johnson's basic criticism appears to be: " All of these [cases] are equated [by Caldwell] 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. . . . 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." Caps added. No, I was not trying to defend "extraordinary claims." Cases B, C ,D E and F *may* involve the paranormal but not necessarily so. Can Johnson specifically tell us what are the paranormal "features" of each of these cases? But when Johnson writes that the "Ooton Liatoo case. . . "is much more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with Olcott", I do not understand Johnson's thinking in this matter at all!!!! The Ooton Liatoo case is FULL of paranormal features (many of which I did not quote in my critique; see Johnson's book for a fuller version). In the Ooton Liatoo incident, Olcott writes in part: "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...." Is THIS series of events so "normal" and "ordinary", I ask? And what about the rain shower, etc!!! The incident REEKS of the paranormal yet Johnson can write (with all seriousness??) ) that this Ooton Liatto case is "much more clearly one of *physically* present people conversing with Olcott." Someone should ask Dr. Joscelyn Godwin what he thinks of this "Ooton Liatto" case. : ) [Dr. Godwin is the person who first discovered Olcott's letter on Ooton Liatto and published it in THEOSOPHICAL HISTORY.] Do "*physically* present people" disappear and appear in the manner described by Olcott??!! And then Johnson (without cracking a smile) in the next sentence can write the following: " But Mr. Caldwell does not seem to recognize that these "appearances" [ Cases B, C, D, E and F??] sound more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits. . . .The principle which seems to elude Mr. Caldwell is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. . . . . 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." Is the Ooton Liatto case any LESS "dubious and ambiguous" than Cases B,C D E and F? Are we seeing Johnson's "double standard" at work again in his thinking on this subject of the paranormal?? Does Johnson expect anyone to take his criticism seriously? Instead of "shooting" me, I think Johnson has only "shot" himself in the "foot." In a week or so I will reply to some of Johnson's other criticisms of my HOUSE OF CARDS. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:13:16 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of the Paranormal; or Methinks Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot" Message-ID: In message <199709221837.LAA03970@mailhost.azstarnet.com>, Graye/Caldwell writes >In a week or so I will reply to some of Johnson's other criticisms of my >HOUSE OF CARDS. Please don't. Reply to KPJ by all means. In any case, if this eternal wrangling (or warfare) you want to have with him is that important, it should go to theos-roots, not theos-l. Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:00:23 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Ti Welcome Message-ID: THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL welcomes Debbie Cohen! Individual welcomes to: debbie.cohen@am.pharmacia.com Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 00:10:09 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Digest 1249 Message-ID: In message <970922131752_520780558@emout07.mail.aol.com>, DSArthur@aol.com writes >< ... and I never did get that >"Cain and Abel" story>, I have heard some interesting explanations (yes, I >know, Chuck, and NONE of them can be proved!). However, I won't expound on >any of them in this post because Alan is still relaxing. I never got it either. I once looked up the hebrew meanings of the words, and logic suggested that Abel would have killed Cain ..... [returns to relaxing mode] Alan --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:37:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970922200702_1730810053@emout10.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-22 13:43:11 EDT, you write: >Wonder how one goes about finding people like Lynnclaire, not to talk about >those who willingly pay to attend the lectures. > >mkr > I don't know and I don't want to know. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:10:51 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Subject: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <199709230041.UAA17454@NetGSI.com> Jim, I enjoyed your post. However, I have never seen Yoga as rules, but rather as doctrines and techniques. I always think of "rules" as Thou Shalt Nots, in the sense of things that we should or shouldn't do. In my view, for example, the 10 commandments are rules. It always comes down to semantics, I suppose. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:25:33 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Karma--to Dennis Message-ID: <199709230041.UAA17459@NetGSI.com> >... I reply: I believe you are >mistaken, Jerry. Karma does (and must) account for everything that happens. >But personal karma, being much more limited in scope, does not (and often >can not). ... Dennis, my whole point with "collective karma" is that it is virtually indistinquishable from "God's will." If you don't think so, then please try to tell me the difference. When you say that karma covers everything, then you are echoing the Christian idea that every leaf that falls is in God's loving hands. What's the difference? We have no control over either God's will or collective karma, and so I refer to both as the Chaos Factor, because I have to acknowledge that *something* is there, but I don't really know what it is. Personally, the notion that I did something wrong in a past life that I am unconsciously suffering for now is anathema to me (all animal and child training agrees that punishment or reward must be immediate and consistant in order for learning to take place--no damn wonder we have been evolving for so many eons). Also, the idea that God is in full control of what I see going on in this world is anathema to me (I think I could do a better job). Jerry S. Member TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:38:05 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709230041.UAA04782@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 12:40 PM > > > If you are referring to the program based on the "near-death" experience, I > am wondering what so special about it? Many are busy dealing with real life > living with very little time or interest in near death matters. Fortunately > Death ends all our personal problems. This is a fact. > If near-death is considered New Age, then I don't know what to say. Death is just the other side of life and as many boomers reach the big 50, 60, 70, 80 and whatever, this topic will become more popular. I also believe that as the volume of elderly grows in this country and they don't quite know what to do with all the aged boomers who have large medical bills and physical problems, there will be Kervorkian centers located almost on every corner. As fas as I'm concerned, when one makes a rational decision that the body has served its purpose, it's time to go with dignity. There were no such taboos in the ancient days or Japan. One forgets, one is coming back, very soon. But I do believe it has to be a well thought out decision. A. SAfron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:39:18 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709230041.UAA04790@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: m.k. ramadoss > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 11:33 AM > > Was Deepak Chopra one of those in the program? > > ...doss > He'd probably be too expensive for them. A. SAfron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:41:28 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709230041.UAA04797@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 12:31 PM > > No, they won't do anything near as sensible as that. What they will do is > have models of THE PATTERN all over the frigging place and do silly dancing > around them. THE PATTERN? Is this some new kind of dance like the frug of yesteryear? The mashed potatoes? The cha-cha? The "bird"? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:41:45 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Collective Karma Message-ID: <199709230101.VAA18470@NetGSI.com> >This is intriguing. Would you agree that perhaps collective karma limits >and governs the operation of personal karma (and probably even the timing >of it)? In other words, nothing can happen on the level of personal karma >that is not within what is possible under collective karma. Just a thought. > >Lynn Lynn, your idea is not quite true. We are, in fact, more than human, and so can out-distance our collective karma--which is, after all, the karma of this human lifewave. Remember the so-called six-rounders and seventh-rounders? These folks can get outside of our collective karma, and thus can help alter it. It is hard to change from within. Like the 100th Monkey Effect, once some human does something, it becomes possible for all to do it. However, even six-rounders (Adepts) must succumb to collective karma to some degree, because they are human, after all. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 18:33:42 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Punishment versus correction Message-ID: <199709230133.SAA09488@palrel1.hp.com> "Jerry Schueler" wrote: > Personally, the notion that I did something wrong in a past > life that I am unconsciously suffering for now is anathema to me > (all animal and child training agrees that punishment or reward > must be immediate and consistant in order for learning to take > place--no damn wonder we have been evolving for so many eons). Probably this idea explains the general resistance to a sowing and reaping interpretation of karma. I wouldn't say that God punishes, but rather that His/Her law corrects. If you bang your fist into a wall and it hurts, do you blame the wall or say that the wall is punishing you? No, you have experienced the painful aspect of the law of impenetrability. As for the delay involved, that is a more interesting question. My thoughts are a considerable interpolation from the writings of Ann Ree Colton on the Undersoul. The Undersoul, she says, is a kind of buffer for our karma. Consequences are stored until the best possible moment to experience them. Considering the interdependency of everything in the world, and lacking a perspective encompassing everyone and everything, it can sometimes seem that God does a poor job of this, but that's a rather anthropomorphic presumption. The circumstances to maximize our learning from consequences may need to wait for other persons and events. Think of how computers use buffers to time use of resources or wait until the resources are available. > Also, the idea that God is in full control of what I see going on > in this world is anathema to me (I think I could do a better job). I think it's rather astonishing how we can have free will we do and how the world is not a LOT worse. If I were "God" and tried to rearrange the world, watch out! I don't think I would improve it. It reminds me of what Jung said about his life when he was 81. He said there is not one thing - not one mistake - he would change. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:58:07 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: God/Dennis - who knew? Message-ID: <199709230158.TAA16430@mailmx.micron.net> Dennis wrote: > And you ask: <... well, then, a >question --- does putting words in God's mouth to prove a point fall within >the category of ... well ... cheating?> And I reply: no, Kym, on two counts. >1. It doesn't PROVE a point (for vigorous confirmation of this statement >contact "C the H") Are we wiggling over the word "prove?" Ok, well, you must obviously feel putting words in 'God's mouth' will somehow bolster your opinion, do you not? Let me re-phrase, "Does putting words in God's mouth to bolster your point of view fall within the category of. . .well. . .cheating?" >and 2. "Putting words in God's mouth" is fairly standard >practice in our society (I suspect you haven't been listening to many church >sermons lately). Oh, my! I lay my hand upon my bosom and am aghast! Are you saying since putting words in God's mouth is "fairly standard practice in our society" that that justifies your use of it? I'm not attacking you here, Dennis. . .I'm simply prying. But I am deflated, as I expected much more robust answers from someone who has such a stalwart philosophy. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:50:16 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: the Victorian Mind Message-ID: In message <199709220006.UAA23356@mcfeely.concentric.net>, "A. Safron" writes >It's as if they were damning themselves by saying "we're the Old Age." > >A. SAfron The Geriatric Lodge? Alan :-) --------- THEOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL: Working for a New Age: http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 23:25:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Mother Theresa lands in Hell Message-ID: <970922232437_-962606453@emout09.mail.aol.com> Here's something I got from another list. Maybe there is justice in the universe after all. Chuck the Heretic Message: 40 >Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:16:07 -0600 >From: Ben Liberman >Subject: Mother Teresa Sent to Hell in Wacky Afterlife Mix-Up > >[http://www.theonion.com/onion3206/motherteresa.html] > >CALCUTTA--In what is widely believed to be the result of clerical error >on the part of Heaven's massive soul-evaluation and >punishment-allocation bureaucracy, The Calcutta Daily-Telegram reported >Monday that beloved missionary caregiver Mother Teresa was condemned to >agonizing, eternal torment in Hell following her death last Friday at >the age of 87. > >Widely expected to ascend into Paradise and take her rightful place >among the saints to the glorious fanfare of horns and choruses upon her >passing, she was instead hurled from the firmament into the bowels of >the Lake of Fire. > >"We can only assume that some sort of mix-up occurred in the processing >phase," said St. Peter, the heavenly official in charge of the Book of >Life, in which the names of those chosen to ascend to the Gates of >Heaven are written. "Unfortunately, when you deal with over 70 million >souls a day, these kinds of mistakes happen. What can I say? I don't >know what else to tell you." > >Mother Teresa, who for decades inspired the world with her selfless >devotion to the starving, disease-ridden masses of Calcutta, was >unavailable for comment, as she was being lowered upside-down into a vat >of boiling human excrement by a trio of pitchfork-wielding >demons. Similar punishment reportedly awaits her for the rest of >eternity. > >Ever since Monday, heavenly angels, cherubim, seraphim, and other >secondary celestial entities have been working around the clock to keep >up with the enormous volume of intercessionary prayers arriving daily on >Mother Teresa's behalf. Despite the tremendous number of pleas, however, >Heaven essentially has its hands tied. > >"It's sad that this happened," the archangel Gabriel, a spokesperson for >Heaven, told reporters. "But we really can't do anything about it. The >whole point of eternal damnation is that it is inescapable, absolute, >and irrevocable. If the Lord were to turn around and pull her out of >Hell now, he'd be turning his back on millennia of Catholic doctrine, on >everything Mother Teresa stood for." > >Her arthritic limbs snapping like twigs as her frail, 4'11" frame was >rent asunder by the claws of grotesque, multi-limbed demons, Mother >Teresa reportedly screamed in indescribable agony as the superheated >gases of Hell's unholy furnace blackened and charred her hair and >face. According to a New York Times report, her skull has already been >used as a drinking goblet by Satan, the Great Deceiver himself, and the >esteemed nun's rape at the hands of insatiable, barbed-penis-wielding >hellhounds in the near-future is considered "highly likely." > >"I can't believe this happened," said stunned Catholic Cristina >Fontanez, 38, of Petaluma, CA. "She must have been so shocked when, >after a lifetime of good works, she found herself face-to-face with >Satan. Instead of being thrust into the living and redemptive light of >Jesus' love for all time upon her death, she instead found herself being >slit from crotch to sternum and suffering the pain of red-hot >instruments of torture repeatedly being plunged deep into her writhing >entrails." > >Speculation varies as to what could have caused such a miscarriage of >heavenly justice. While some contend that Mother Teresa's policy of not >administering medication to the sick and dying in her clinics may have >caused some in Heaven to doubt her true compassion, others believe that >her constant speeches against birth control--a contributing factor to >mass overpopulation, poverty and starvation throughout the Third >World--may be to blame. > >Still others posit that Teresa may have sinned in her heart at some >point during her long life, qualifying her for eternal damnation despite >a history of good works. > >"According to Catholic doctrine, even one moment of lust would be enough >to justify Mother Teresa's banishment to the flame," said Archbishop >Janiusz Wolsczya of Krakow. "It is possible that after years of celibacy >and self-denial, her natural desires for sexual release may have built >to a breaking point. I imagine that sleeping alone on that hard cot all >those years and donating every ounce of her strength to the care of the >poor, she must have been very lonely. The compulsion to masturbate must >have been enormous." > >Most observers, however, reject these explanations, firm in the belief >that the eternal punishment is undeserved, the result of simple >bureaucratic error on the part of heavenly officials. > >"I promise a full investigation into this matter," the Apostle John, >seated at the right hand of Christ Almighty, told reporters. "If any >evidence of incompetence or error on the part of the officials who >conducted Mother Teresa's afterlife evaluation is found, I assure you >there will be serious repercussions." > >Despite such strongly worded statements from Heaven, a majority of >followers on Earth are calling the promise of a full investigation a >case of "too little, too late." > >"I feel like this has forever weakened the foundation of my faith," said >73-year-old Giancarlo Rossetti of Milan, one of over 300,000 protesters >who crowded Vatican Square Tuesday to call for an immediate reversal of >the Mother Teresa Hell condemnation. "She was a good woman, and she does >not deserve to have her eyes torn out of their sockets by flaming packs >of ravenous demon-dogs." > >Satan, speaking from deep within his fortress in the Hell city of Dis, >described the late Mother Teresa's soul as "succulent and tasty." > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 20:29:10 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: Karma Message-ID: <34270D56.18EA@dmv.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > > >... I reply: I believe you are > >mistaken, Jerry. Karma does (and must) account for everything that > happens. > >But personal karma, being much more limited in scope, does not (and often > >can not). ... > > Dennis, my whole point with "collective karma" is that it is virtually > indistinquishable from "God's will." If you don't think so, then > please try to tell me the difference. When you say that karma > covers everything, then you are echoing the Christian idea that > every leaf that falls is in God's loving hands. What's the difference? > We have no control over either God's will or collective karma, and > so I refer to both as the Chaos Factor, because I have to > acknowledge that *something* is there, but I don't really know what > it is. Personally, the notion that I did something wrong in a past > life that I am unconsciously suffering for now is anathema to me > (all animal and child training agrees that punishment or reward > must be immediate and consistant in order for learning to take > place--no damn wonder we have been evolving for so many eons). > Also, the idea that God is in full control of what I see going on > in this world is anathema to me (I think I could do a better job). > This post strikes a cord with me. The Torah was called the book of blessings and curses by Moses himself, so I don't see Karma as anything else but a twist on blessings and curses. As a child I was aware of having three past lives, which came to me as innate knowledge and also some visual recollections. I have never found any true evidence that my life is ruled by those past lives. However, I did have an experience that was 'structured' by Karma, I think. While I was studing computer science there was another student at the school who appeared at the classroom door during the breaks of a long programming course. He was very overweight and was also muscular. He would stand leaning on the doorjam listening to the light conversation all the while watching me intently. When converstation turned to me and he heard me speak a few words, he would blurt out his question. His question was simply "What did you say?" which was delivered in an angry tone. After asking the question he would suddenly gain control of himself and walk quickly away from the door down the hallway. This fellow went through this performance in exactly the same way at the same time of day on three consecutive days. After the incident on the third day he did not disappear down the hall but rushed into the room, stood before me and confessed to me. Well, I supose I won't go into detail, but he was able to identify himself to me as someone who I had encountered in a past life, and his simple vehement question was a partial reinactment of a very Karmicly important event from that lifetime. This is a disturbing feature of "Karma"; that emnity from past life events can be echoed in the present, and in this mans case he was nearly complelled to repeat his complete actions. The moral of the story is that our thoughts and actions in this life have the upperhand. TTFN Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:30:57 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of the Paranormal; or Methinks Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot" Message-ID: <199709231232.IAA13202@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Graye/Caldwell > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of the Paranormal; or Methinks Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot" > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 2:04 PM > > K. Paul Johnson and His Understanding of the Paranormal; or Methinks > Johnson has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot" > > by Daniel H. Caldwell > > 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. Below are Johnson's > comments. After his comments I quote the cases Johnson refers to. > > Please read these accounts and ask yourself which case appears to involve the > paranormal? Which case shows elements of the paranormal? Compare these > cases for yourself. Which case appears (to quote Johnson's own words) > "more like paranormal visitations than normal physical visits"? And please tell us why we have to put up with this for the zillionth time? Will it feed the hungry of the world.? Free the oppressed? Ease the pain of the sick and the dying? Dan, get a life. A. Safron > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:33:57 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709231245.IAA15275@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Dr. A.M.Bain > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: the Victorian Mind > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 10:23 PM > > In message <199709220006.UAA23356@mcfeely.concentric.net>, "A. Safron" > writes > >It's as if they were damning themselves by saying "we're the Old Age." > > > >A. SAfron > > The Geriatric Lodge? > More like the Stone Age. Anyone know what a wheel is? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 07:44:26 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Mother Theresa lands in Hell Message-ID: <199709231245.IAA15283@newman.concentric.net> --------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Mother Theresa lands in Hell > Date: Monday, September 22, 1997 10:26 PM > >snippy > > >Speculation varies as to what could have caused such a miscarriage of > >heavenly justice. While some contend that Mother Teresa's policy of not > >administering medication to the sick and dying in her clinics may have > >caused some in Heaven to doubt her true compassion, others believe that > >her constant speeches against birth control--a contributing factor to > >mass overpopulation, poverty and starvation throughout the Third > >World--may be to blame. This is where I agree with you. Anyone who promotes the Roman Catholic Doctrine has rocks in their head. While the Popes and Bishops live in the old Vatican splendor under Michelangelo's painting, they exhort the poor to make more poor. Are they planning some holy war and need fresh troops? Keep the people's minds off of thinking for themselves by being busy with twelve starving children? Never paid much attention to Mother Teresa, except for pics in the paper, but I sure did notice those ultra-conservative Cathollic raps she put out whenever she got the chance. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 08:59:36 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Digest 1251 Message-ID: <970923085848_1663827732@emout11.mail.aol.com> For Jerry S.: who wrote: and I reply: IMHO the difference is very simple to explain. Collective karma exists and "God's Will" (in the classical Christian sense which I assume is the sense in which you used it) .. does not. It seems obvious to me that there is a collective consciousness (i.e. the sum total of all individual consciousness) and we can even go a step further and call this consciousness "the collective will" or, since we are Gods ("in your law, I said, ye are Gods" [John 10:34 (NKJV)], perhaps even "Gods' Will." But this is a far cry from the conventional Christian concept that envisions some exalted being with divine foreknowledge (which they refer to as "God's Will") and who, being omniscient and infallible, always has His Will fulfilled. I am a firm believer in free will (at our current level of enlightenment) and I believe with equal firmness that it and the classical "God's Will" or Divine Foreknowledge (IMO the two terms are synonymous) are incompatible. That is, either one can exist ... but not both. Since, as I say, I am convinced that free will exists --- it must logically follow that I am equally convinced that "God's Will" does not. You also wrote: And I reply: indeed I am (echoing the Christian idea). In fact, two of my favorite Bible verses are Mathew 10:29 and 30 which read, respectively: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your father." [and] " ...the very hairs of your head are all numbered." But, in my view, these verses refer to a universe that is individually and collectively aware of itself and all that transpires within it; not a universe running on "full auto-pilot" with no way for us to control it. To be a little more specific, all of us have some measure of control over individual karma (this has been discussed at some length in earlier Digests). It then follows that we must also have some measure of collective control over collective karma (not in how it mani-fests but in how we respond to its manifestation). You further wrote: And I reply: my experience has been that the universe simply is not set up that way, Jerry. Consider, to cite just one example out of thousands, smoking. There are people in their fifties and sixties who are coming down with lung cancer now even though some of them gave up smoking twenty or more years ago. Your rationale would suggest that they should have received their punishment (cancer) immediately as a result of their action (heavy smoking) and not many decades later. But the universe, in my view, cares not at all about your rationale or mine. It is the way that it is and we must learn and accept its parameters... and suffer the consequences in the process. Finally, you wrote: And I reply: The only "God" in this world is US, Jerry. If you think you can do a better job, then do it. This same advice applies to everyone. As for the laws of the universe (karma, evolution, reincarnation, gravity, electromagnetism etc.), we are not going to be able to get them changed or repealed. And perhaps that is just as well. When I was much younger I thought, perhaps like you, that the universe was not running very well. But, subsequently, I gained a lot of experience (and, hopefully, a little enlightenment) ... and I have been amazed at how much better the universe seemed to run after I did so. In fact, I have finally reached the conclusion (mentioned in earlier posts) that, if I could just manage to reach full enlightenment, I would want the universe to run EXACTLY the way it runs now. After all, I have concluded that this is, in fact, a Perfect Universe... and I see no reason to try and alter perfection. But ... please keep this very controversial (see earlier Digests) statement in context. Remember my "car" analogy? I said that I had a perfect car (i.e. it perfectly displayed all of the attributes that it should display, given the conditions under which it existed). I did NOT say that any drivers "could take their hands off the steering wheel" because the car would steer itself. Fact is, if you "take your hands off the steering wheel," my car or any other car will only go where the laws of physics take it (which is generally off the road). A small part of the perfection of our universe, Jerry, is that it seems to have "a steering wheel" and invites (indeed, requires) our involvement in its great journey through the cosmos. NAMASTE -- Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:25:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma--to Dennis Message-ID: <970923132043_439839377@emout08.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-23 00:09:55 EDT, you write: >Also, the idea that God is in full control of what I see going on >in this world is anathema to me (I think I could do a better job). > >Jerry S. Jerry, this table could do a better job! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 13:26:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970923132213_-861129327@emout11.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-23 00:10:19 EDT, you write: >THE PATTERN? Is this some new kind of dance like the frug of yesteryear? >The mashed potatoes? The cha-cha? The "bird"? > >A. Safron I won't even try to explain it. Take a look at the website http://www.kitsap.net/pattern/ It speaks for itself, but be sure to take your tummy medicine before you look at it. Chuck the heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:22:44 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Digest 1252 Message-ID: <970923141934_-1531215843@emout03.mail.aol.com> For Jerry S. who wrote: I reply: quite possibly true in an imperfect universe ... but not in a perfect one. Why? Because we can only "out-distance" things that are outside of us. You see, we are not inside of a perfect universe; a perfect universe is inside of us. More than that, in a perfect universe there isn't (at the very core of being) any "us." There is only "ME" ... and I can never out-distance ME. Couched in dualistic (and, therefore, mayan) terms, this statement would read: we can never out-distance us. For Titus: I read your posts ... and see the echo of my own thoughts. So (for the benefit of all of us) let me ask your conception of the universe, Titus. Is it perfect or not? For Kym: It has never been my intention to put words in God's mouth "to bolster my opinion." I do so (and I'd guess so do you when you really stop to think about it) in order to define concepts. For example: I strongly believe that I AM MY BROTHER'S KEEPER. I don't believe that implying (as I surely did) that the Bible should have recorded God as having said so alters this conception in any way. You also said (in Digest 1252): I reply: yes, Kym, I do ... provided, of course, that I clearly point out (as I did in my post) that the words are my own even though I feel they should be God's also. Frankly, your several posts on this issue lead me to feel that what is really making you uncomfortable is not so much my "putting words in God's mouth" as my promulgating the concept that you are your brother's (and sister's) keeper. I suspect that, deep down, you feel just being Kym Smith's keeper is all you can manage to deal with right now. For Vincent: I read your Digest 1252 post and found it illuminating. I fully agree with your observation "that our thoughts and actions in this life have the upper hand." In other words, free will, right? NAMASTE to all -- Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:51:02 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Digest 1252 Message-ID: <199709232151.PAA13931@mailmx.micron.net> Dennis wrote: >Frankly, your >several posts on this issue lead me to feel that what is really making you >uncomfortable is not so much my "putting words in God's mouth" as my >promulgating the concept that you are your brother's (and sister's) keeper. That's an interesting observation, since I have been accused more than once on this list as being a "bleeding-heart liberal" - you know us, we want to take care of (or "keep") everybody. But I accept the fact that not everyone reads my posts, or pays them much mind - as is evident in your above statement. 'Tis ok, though. > I suspect that, deep down, you feel just being Kym Smith's keeper is all you >can manage to deal with right now. Oooh, good one! I'm impressed - really. However, why is it that those of us who claim to know God also have readily available words to crush our brothers and sisters, and have no compunction against using them? I find it fun, and it does temporarily build my self-esteem - but, is it right? Ah, who cares. . . By the way, what makes you think my last name is Smith? There are many names with Smith in them that are not Smith; such as Smithson, Smithy, etc. . . And you have a snappy good day, Dennis. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:14:12 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Immediate Punishing & Learning Message-ID: <199709232322.TAA14549@NetGSI.com> >Your rationale would suggest that >they should have received their punishment (cancer) immediately as a result >of their action (heavy smoking) and not many decades later. But the universe, >in my view, cares not at all about your rationale or mine. It is the way >that it is and we must learn and accept its parameters... and suffer the >consequences in the process. If what you say here is true, then the universe cares not a wit whether we learn anything here or not--which is exactly what I have been trying to say. If the universe was set up as a learning institution or school, as many occult folks like to say--TS folks included--then effects would follow causes a whole lot faster. Since they dont, as you point out, then perhaps we are not here to learn lessons at all. Please think about it. Maybe there is another reason? Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:03:58 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Karma & The Purpose of Life Message-ID: <199709232322.TAA14547@NetGSI.com> >Probably this idea explains the general resistance to a sowing and reaping >interpretation of karma. I wouldn't say that God punishes, but rather that >His/Her law corrects. If you bang your fist into a wall and it hurts, do you >blame the wall or say that the wall is punishing you? No, you have experienced >the painful aspect of the law of impenetrability. Yes, I think the "resistance" is the result of plain common sense and observation. I agree that the Law corrects, and I usually think of karma itself as a balancing action. However, I do not believe in a personal or anthropromorphic God who punishes and rewards, such as Jehovah is pictured (as Jung wrote, such a God as described in the Bible is disfunctional). The problem, as I see it, is the notion that we are here to learn something. Yes, if you bang your fist into a wall it hurts. The punishment is instant and consistant. So, how many times do we hit the wall till we learn not to? When reward or punishment is swift and constant, learning takes place pretty quick. Well, we are said to have been evolving for many manvantaras, and I don't see where we have learned a whole lot yet. The whole business of us coming into manifestation to learn lessons, while appealing to our human sense of purpose and meaning, is ridiculous and childishly naive, IMHO. I am always dismayed to find people of such stature and understanding as G de Purucker giving out this kind of stuff. This is the kind of thing we tell our children, like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Its easy to understand, and kind of gives us a sense of purpose. But when we really think about it, its patently absurd to suggest that we need thousands of lifetimes to learn such a simple thing as compassion. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:47:50 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: History upload Message-ID: <77PfHPAWcEK0Ew8P@nellie2.demon.co.uk> I am uploading to the HISTORY directory on the website below (Click on DIRECTORY then HISTORY a file named besdefam.txt. This gives the text of the 8th May 1913 decision of the Presidency Magistrates Court, Georgetown regarding defamation charges brought by Annie Besant against two Indian journals and their editors. The charges made by her arose from the Leadbeater affair, and she lost both cases. The file is best imported into a full page word processor, as I used Wordperfect 7 to edit and spellcheck it. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 19:40:27 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: Digest 1252 Message-ID: <3428536B.C08@dmv.com> DSArthur@aol.com wrote: > > For Vincent: I read your Digest 1252 post and found it illuminating. I fully > agree with your observation "that our thoughts and actions in this life have > the upper hand." In other words, free will, right? > NAMASTE to all -- Dennis What we are free to choose or desire is modified by the events of the past; the complete events not just our own "actions". Our actions in the present, however, are not at all completely 'determined' by the past. We should consider the past, *Karma* etc., but what the present is about is the future, and we are to modify that future in the present with the application of "will" to use Blavatsky's term, or with "intent" from Castaneda; prayer. The reason that we are not constantly willing, intending, praying, is that ordinary consciousness is isolated from the Astral Light of history; past, present, future. The higherself is the sensory self having the experience of history as complete in the present; history is complete at any given moment as the sumation of all desired, willed, intended, prayed for outcomes. It is our intentions that form events, and what we intend without doubt, what we hold as ordinary 'thoughtless' certainty, forms the moments that we live in. When Blavatsky says that the Theosophist "wills" changes in the world, the whole effort is to bring the 'object' within consciousness to a reflection on an "ordinary thoughtless certainty". It is a struggle with self that when won produces the magical result. Most souls on this earth never contemplate the thick soup of doubt that they are constantly submerged in. To modify the world with our intentions carries with it ontological fear. It has been said, "Be carefull what you pray for.", but that by no means should mean that we should avoid all such experience. We should "master what we pray for". When your thought has had an immediate and profound effect, you have arrived; reborn from the wind. Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:18:26 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Baghavan Das Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970924141826.0113d700@mail.eden.com> I visited your website and read the Bhagvan Das material. Bhagvan Das was very active in TS all his life and his son Sri Prakasa was well known in Indian Politics and served several terms as State Governor, an appointed position. Both Bhagvan Das and Sri Prakasa both highly regarded Annie Besant. While Sri Prakasa was a Governor, his official residence was always open to members of the TS and one has just to go to the entrance and mention that you are a TS member, you get to go in. In spite of all the litigation that went in and all the complaints we have heard about Annie Besant and her actions, almost everyone who has written about her are agreed about how kind a person she was. Just thought I should add my 2 cents worth. mkr At 08:26 PM 9/19/97 -0400, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > >I have uploaded to the website below the file Hinducol.txt (41,395 >bytes) being an *expose* of Annie Besant and the Esoteric Section of the >T.S. [Adyar] vis-a-vis the Central Hindu College in India in 1913. > >Bhagavan Das was formerly the General Secretary of the Indian Section of >the T.S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:20:44 -0400 (EDT) From: DSArthur@aol.com Subject: Digest 1253 Message-ID: <970924112011_22781740@emout18.mail.aol.com> For Vincent: I find myself in complete agreement with your comments concerning Free Will (in Digest 1253) ... with perhaps one exception. You wrote: It seems to me that intentions *influence* events but are only one component of their formation. Activity (which includes intent) is the actual cause. For Jerry: I would say that we do not so much seek incarnation on this plane of existence "in order to learn" as we do "in order to experience." What we learn (and how long it may take us to learn it) appears IMHO to be largely dependent on what we experience and how we experience it. And I agree with your comment suggesting that it is silly to contemplate needing thousands of lives in order to learn, say, compassion. OTOH, I have known some people (and probably so have you) that may well require dozens. NAMASTE -- Dennis From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:56:03 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: digest 1252 Message-ID: To Chuck: (sorry - but I can't resist) you citate: "... face-to-face with S a t a n..." Who is that? and what does he do in "Heaven"? "... firm in the belief that the eternal punishment is undeserved, the result of simple bureaucratic error on the part of heavenly officials." Why does this so sound like the misunderstood meaning of the word "karma"? To Vincent: "As a child I was aware of having three past lives, which came to me as innate knowledge and also some visual recollections. I have never found any true evidence that my life is ruled by those past lives."... You speek out of my soul here - I see it exactly the same way. "This is a disturbing feature of "Karma"; that emnity from past life events can be echoed in the present, and in this mans case he was nearly complelled to repeat his complete actions". Could you please help me here, I have difficutlies to understand this. If you see it the way you do write in the first sample, where does the echo come from? Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:01:59 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <34294787.1B37@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > As far as I can see, the Victorianism still is a apart of TSA. It certainly is > in the acceptance of CWL and other writers, who are out of tune with > the times. People are give books that seem to be from 1890 and asked > to study them. The TSA has had a hard task in updating this material, if it > ever can. What is needed in the TSA is the encouragement of discrimination. I have caused waves by recommending looking into the literature of the major skeptics' organizations (SKEPTIC magazine is far superior to THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, btw), and seeing how they separate the wheat from the chaff (and also, how they frequently throw away what might be wheat because they refuse to look at it carefully). Also, literature is one of the places where postmodernist thought has demonstrable validity. When one reads Leadbeater, Besant, and even Blavatsky (here, btw, is one place where Paul Johnson's book becomes quite useful), one needs to know about their language, their attitudes, their prejudices, etc., and that gives the reader the ability to read beyond the problems that creep in, and look at what the writer is REALLY trying to say, and evaluate THAT. For example, I am preparing a public talk on AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER. Largely (probably) because of Besant's influence, this otherwise wonderful little book is marred to the modern reader by the high level of devotional language (the devotional ray being out of favor these days), which gets in the way of those readers who find such an attitude to be sickening (OK, I'm showing MY prejudices here!). But, by removing the language, there is an excellent summary of how to live one's life based on the knowledge towards which we are striving (there is, however, some resistance for my working title for the talk: DO-IT-YOURSELF ENLIGHTENMENT WITH ONLY 40 CENTS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT). > What really gets me, is when the TS keeps yelling it has nothing to do with > the "New Age", as if this sanitizes them from the crazies of today. What > about the crazies of yesterday that were quite evident in TS? The problem with the "New Age", at least as currently practiced has to do with what happened largely in the 60's. There was a growing interest in esotericism among the youth, combined with a growing interest in Communism. Communism, however, had a postmodernist view towards reality itself; the belief was that because it is impossible to look at reality with 100% objectivity, then all views of reality are equally subjective. This simplified into a belief that the ego is all, and that belief became combined with the New Age beliefs to make the New Age movement highly egocentric. THAT is why the TS (and just about any group that has reached any level of advancement in their esoteric studies) tries to distance itself from it. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:07:12 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <342948C0.2CC@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > IMHO he was rejecting the TS at that point in time. It was getting pretty wild with > CWL running around in a purple dress, initiations being handed out willy-nilly, > and everyone expecting K to give them enlightenment. No wonder he ran for > hills. If he did reject "all" organizations, it was on the basis of what he'd > already experienced. True. I, however, like to make the following comparison: If you live in, say, New York City, and wish to climb Mt. Everest, a ship won't take you to the top. But it can be very useful in getting you close enough that you can actually try. Now, Krishnamurti is sort of like a guy who swam the Atlantic Ocean by himself, made the trek all the way to Mt. Everest, and then climbed it. He says, "You don't need any vehicles to climb Mt. Everest, and no vehicle will get you to the top of Mt. Everest." This does not mean that a vehicle can't be extremely helpful in getting you part, or even most, of the way there. It is probably true: no organization will give you enlightenment. But an organization can very well help you get close enough that you CAN go the rest of the way yourself, even if you're not a Krishnamurti. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:14:41 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Karma Message-ID: <34294A81.6DFE@sprynet.com> Jaqtarin Samantha Triele wrote: > I have to agree with Dennis' theory on the existence of both a personal > and collective karma. Collective karma is fairly easy to understand on a > physical level, and a good allegory is: If you are unkind to one person, > they will be more likely to be unkind to others, and those others will do > likewise. On a karmic level, the results of all acts are thrown into a > collective pool, both negative and positive. By results, I mean negative > or positive. Now, I don't believe that karma stores causes. In other > words, collective karma is quite simply a pool of negative and positive > energies. My concept of karma is that it is the force/energies/whatever that maintains what appears to be separateness in the universe. Actions or inactions can either promote or help to remove this separateness. If one acts/fails to act in a way that supports the separateness, then one increases the amount of effort it will take to remove it. This is true whether one is an individual, a group, a race, etc. As this concept was reasonably close to the concept originally represented by the term, "karma", the Mahatmas used it, although there were some significant differences. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:18:01 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <34294B49.1E09@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > from the Anglican church). Reform the (shhhecret) Masons. Open up to > astral projection, lucid dreaming, scientific testing and debate? The only thing secret about the Masons is their methods of mutual recognition. It is not a secret society; it is a private society. Major difference. Masons are not allowed to talk about certain things that happen during their rituals, but this is part of the ritual. There are plenty of books by ex-Masons which reveal every detail, including the signs of mutual recognition. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:26:05 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <34294D2D.72B2@sprynet.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > No, they won't do anything near as sensible as that. What they will do is > have models of THE PATTERN all over the frigging place and do silly dancing > around them. I have noted that there has been no arbitrary (as opposed to with cause) TS bashing on this list, lately. I assume that your initial statement (about the New Age reaching TSA) was not arbitrary, but it WOULD help to know what you are talking about. At the New York Lodge, we occasionally have public lectures which we feel will attract people who, if they knew about Theosophy, would be attracted to it, not unlike the way H. P. Blavatsky recruited among the Spiritualists. Our local term, coined by Ed Abdill, is "glow-in-the-dark" lectures, based on his statement that people want to see a lecturer stand on the podium, turn off the lights, and glow in the dark. We do require that such lectures at least have a theosophical basis, however. For those who wish to give a program that goes farther afield, but is not against us, we also offer rentals of space (which do not go into our public program). For example, this fall we have a lecture on "Your Astrological Chart and the Hidden Key to Your Higher Self"; not exactly a talk on Theosophy, but those who are interested in the concept of a "higher self" have a higher likelihood of being attracted to Theosophy than those who are not. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:38:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: digest 1252 Message-ID: <970924133340_1496247969@emout05.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-24 12:03:17 EDT, you write: >To Chuck: (sorry - but I can't resist) you citate: "... face-to-face with >S a t a n..." >Who is that? and what does he do in "Heaven"? > >"... firm in the belief that the eternal punishment is undeserved, the >result of >simple bureaucratic error on the part of heavenly officials." >Why does this so sound like the misunderstood meaning of the word "karma"? > I'm gratified to be given the credit, but I didn't write the piece. I simply copied it from an occult humor list I'm on. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:40:35 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Digest 1249 Message-ID: <34295093.594E@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > I never got it either. I once looked up the hebrew meanings of the > words, and logic suggested that Abel would have killed Cain ..... The misunderstanding is possibly because the 5 Books of Moses do not stand alone. At least according to Jewish tradition, there was an oral law handed down along with the written law. Now, it is obvious that there were changes in both over the centuries, almost certainly more so with the oral law, which was finally transcribed during the time of the Babylonian Empire into the books known as the Talmud. In any case, in the Talmud, it explains that Abel gave the best of his flock, while Cain gave essentially leftover garbage. More precisely, Abel gave because he wanted to give, while Cain gave reluctantly, which is why Abel's offering was accepted, and Cain's was not (sort of, "If you don't want to give me a gift, then I won't take it"). Cain's anger was more at himself, for screwing up, but Abel was a present symbol of that screw-up. Hence, he directed his anger at Abel. If one takes Genesis as an explanation of humanity in symbolic form, and God as a symbol of Unity, the story of Cain and Abel is a demonstration of the importance of intent, and how even proper actions with the improper intent can bring about disaster. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:42:45 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Subject: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <34295115.7EE2@sprynet.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > > Jim, I enjoyed your post. However, I have never seen Yoga > as rules, but rather as doctrines and techniques. I always > think of "rules" as Thou Shalt Nots, in the sense of things > that we should or shouldn't do. In my view, for example, > the 10 commandments are rules. It always comes down > to semantics, I suppose. Of course, the King James translation makes the language seem a lot harsher. A line which translates more properly as "Don't murder" becomes "THOU SHALT NOT KILL". Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:44:28 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Collective Karma Message-ID: <3429517C.2C60@sprynet.com> Jerry Schueler wrote: > karma, and thus can help alter it. It is hard to change from within. > Like the 100th Monkey Effect, once some human does something, > it becomes possible for all to do it. I hope you realize that the "100th Monkey Effect" was fictonal. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:46:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <970924134305_-794147166@emout11.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-24 13:10:17 EDT, you write: > It is probably true: no organization will give you enlightenment. But >an organization can very well help you get close enough that you CAN go >the rest of the way yourself, even if you're not a Krishnamurti. > > Bart Lidofsky Very true, in fact it probably is a great help not to be a Krishnamurti. All an organization really can do is provide the social encouragement to bother with enlightenment in the first place, but that is no small thing in a world where the whole thing is viewed as a boring waste of time. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 10:55:53 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Digest 1252 Message-ID: <199709241755.KAA12218@palrel1.hp.com> DSArthur@aol.com asked: > For Titus: I read your posts ... and see the echo of my own thoughts. So > (for the benefit of all of us) let me ask your conception of the universe, > Titus. Is it perfect or not? On the point of karma, we agree in the essentials. But in an audience like this, I wouldn't phrase it quite the way you do because of possible misunderstandings. I would say it *functions* perfectly, given our inputs. For every manifested thing I can think of, there is a way for it to evolve more. What is perfect is the act of becoming. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 11:18:37 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma & The Purpose of Life Message-ID: <199709241818.LAA17876@palrel1.hp.com> "Jerry Schueler" wrote: > I agree that the Law corrects, and I usually think of karma itself as a > balancing action. However, I do not believe in a personal or > anthropromorphic God who punishes and rewards, such as Jehovah is pictured > (as Jung wrote, such a God as described in the Bible is disfunctional). What I mean by God is probably close to what you do. God is Spirit. There are nevertheless, finite beings who represent Him/Her. > The problem, as I see it, is the notion that we are here to learn something. > Yes, if you bang your fist into a wall it hurts. The punishment is instant > and consistant. So, how many times do we hit the wall till we learn not to? > When reward or punishment is swift and constant, learning takes place pretty > quick. I can see your analogy with some kinds of learning, but I wonder if it is really fair or true to apply it globally. If I were corrected for every little detail of my mistakes instantly, I doubt I would have enough continuity or gain enough of a conception of the whole to have a point de depart. We can only assimilate so many lessons in an interval of time. For example, in learning a language: A child learns the regular verbs and is not corrected instantly for every irregular verb, because it would confuse him unnecessarily. We need a certain looseness on the leash of our karma to learn the ABCs. As we evolve, our karma is quickened because we can better assimilate the lessons as quickly as the karma. That is why I don't look down on those with quickened karma. If they are in the middle of a karmic state I say, "God must really want him or her!" > But when we really think about it, its patently absurd to suggest that we > need thousands of lifetimes to learn such a simple thing as compassion. I don't think it's absurd. Love demands a LOT of collateral virtues. Anyway, what are a few thousands of lifetimes to eternity? Jerry, my friend, you raise good questions. I value discussions that bring out additional facets of the issue. Arguments go in circles, but I think we're more in a spiral here. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:43:23 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970924184323.00d91f64@mail.eden.com> At 01:09 PM 9/24/97 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >A. Safron wrote: > >> IMHO he was rejecting the TS at that point in time. It was getting pretty wild with >> CWL running around in a purple dress, initiations being handed out willy-nilly, >> and everyone expecting K to give them enlightenment. No wonder he ran for >> hills. If he did reject "all" organizations, it was on the basis of what he'd >> already experienced. > > True. I, however, like to make the following comparison: If you live >in, say, New York City, and wish to climb Mt. Everest, a ship won't take >you to the top. But it can be very useful in getting you close enough >that you can actually try. Now, Krishnamurti is sort of like a guy who >swam the Atlantic Ocean by himself, made the trek all the way to Mt. >Everest, and then climbed it. He says, "You don't need any vehicles to >climb Mt. Everest, and no vehicle will get you to the top of Mt. >Everest." This does not mean that a vehicle can't be extremely helpful >in getting you part, or even most, of the way there. > I don't think that at any time K himself said that he made all the arduous effort like swimming the Atlantic Ocean and climbing Everest. On the other hand, he had once mentioned that while Columbus had to make the difficult trip by ship from Europe to the US, a intelligent man/woman can take the airplane and quickly and comfortably make the journey. According to him, one can instantly come up "enlightenment" or understanding or whatever it is that is beyond time and space. Also he was very emphatic that no organization can help one to come to Truth. mkr > It is probably true: no organization will give you enlightenment. But >an organization can very well help you get close enough that you CAN go >the rest of the way yourself, even if you're not a Krishnamurti. > > Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:43:26 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970924184326.00dea820@mail.eden.com> At 01:29 PM 9/24/97 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >A. Safron wrote: >> from the Anglican church). Reform the (shhhecret) Masons. Open up to >> astral projection, lucid dreaming, scientific testing and debate? > > The only thing secret about the Masons is their methods of mutual >recognition. It is not a secret society; it is a private society. Major >difference. Masons are not allowed to talk about certain things that >happen during their rituals, but this is part of the ritual. There are >plenty of books by ex-Masons which reveal every detail, including the >signs of mutual recognition. > > Bart Lidofsky > It is only the rituals that are secret. Everything else is not. In my opinion, mutual recognition is not that critical an aspect today. Masonic organizations are traditionally considered as one of the of secret societies. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 15:50:43 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: New Age defended Message-ID: <199709241950.PAA13113@leo.vsla.edu> In SUNY Press's hefty America's Alternative Religions there is a good definition of the New Age movement. Found in Phillip Lucas's article on the A.R.E., this passage defines four distinguishing characteristics of the New Age movement: "Belief in an imminent planetary spiritual transformation that will occur at the level of human consciousness...An ethic of self-empowerment and self-healing as a prerequisite to the healing of society...A desire to reconcile religion and science in a higher synthesis that enhances the human condition both materially and spiritually...Strong eclecticism in its embrace of healing therapies, healing practices, and millennial beliefs." Elsewhere Lucas accurately identifies the A.R.E as one of the major promoters of the New Age movement, since it was "a natural outgrowth of activities and emphases that had long been staples of the association." He finds "the New Age's eclectic, pastiche-like approach to spiritual traditions and methods" particularly harmonious with the A.R.E. approach. The reasons for Theosophy's distancing itself from the New Age movement are complex. I don't agree with Bart's conclusion that "the ego is all" and "all views are equally subjective" are necessarily part of the New Age mix. If they were, the same stuff goes back to New Thought-- although the ego is never spoken of favorably in either movement as best I know. And I certainly disagree with the claim that "any group that has reached any level of advancement in their esoteric studies" would distance itself from the New Age-- except in a very special sense of "advancement." First, I don't know that any of the Theosophical groups *have* reached any level of advancement *as groups*-- they're all highly individualistic affairs in which one is more or less on one's own. The ES is an exception to this in the Adyar Society, but not an encouraging one. There, belief that "we are advanced in esoteric studies" creates a spiritual elitism that looks down not just on non-Theosophists but on all FTS who are outside the group. It is *that* kind of advancement in esoteric studies that has kept the Theosophists standing on the sidelines. Advancement in thinking that "we have the secret truth and others don't." In 20 years of observing both movements, I have found the A.R.E. to be much more willing to identify with the New Age, but also much more open generally. I think the two go hand in hand, and that Theosophical distancing from the New Age movement is mostly a simple case of "mine's better than yours." Better because older, or closer to some imagined source of authority, or more abstract, probably. Last year someone here made a reference to "plebeian New Agers" as a group that Theosophists had every right to look down on. I think that conveys an all-too-prevalent attitude. While Theosophists are busy looking down on seekers, other more welcoming groups are drawing them in. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:18:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970924160443_-363288159@emout12.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-24 13:35:44 EDT, you write: > I have noted that there has been no arbitrary (as opposed to with >cause) TS bashing on this list, lately. I assume that your initial >statement (about the New Age reaching TSA) was not arbitrary, but it >WOULD help to know what you are talking about. > Bart, You really don't want to know about this one. Every once in a while a dud of a speaker slips in and every once in a while a genuine nutcase slips in. But rarely do they use the nutcase for part of a full page ad in a local new-age paper to bring people in to the TS. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:22:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: New Age defended Message-ID: <970924162029_1653046617@emout17.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-24 15:53:56 EDT, you write: >Last year someone here made a reference to "plebeian New Agers" >as a group that Theosophists had every right to look down on. >I think that conveys an all-too-prevalent attitude. While >Theosophists are busy looking down on seekers, other more >welcoming groups are drawing them in. > To call New Agers plebian is a compliment they do not deserve. They are not seekers, they are idiots! And any group that wants strange people with 200 crystals and who pray for them, or thinks that patterns seen as the result of oxygen starvation can save the world and solve the problem of creation itself is more than welcome to them. We have our share of bores and nuts in Theosophy, and we may get very impatient with them, but in my experience Theosophists, for all their obstinacy, tend to have working brains and even manage to use them. I may get madder'n hell at my brethren and sistern in the TS and occasionally go out of my way to tweak them, but I'll take a room full of Theosophists over the sort of crackpots and loonies that one finds at the local crystal emporium any day. For all our stodginess and antiquated literature, we have not lost our critical faculties. Which, is, incidentally, why most of the people in the Chicago area magickal community have been in or are involved in or with the TS in some capacity or other. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:47:39 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: New Age defended Message-ID: <34298A7B.1015@sprynet.com> K. Paul Johnson wrote: > "advancement." First, I don't know that any of the > Theosophical groups *have* reached any level of advancement *as > groups*-- they're all highly individualistic affairs in which > one is more or less on one's own. The ES is an exception to > this in the Adyar Society, but not an encouraging one. There, > belief that "we are advanced in esoteric studies" creates a > spiritual elitism that looks down not just on non-Theosophists > but on all FTS who are outside the group. What I did not state was that, because of the egocentric nature of a large component of the New Age, and because that component gets most of the press ("Symposium on Getting Wealth, Power, and Sex with Only 5 Minutes a Day!"), those who take a less egocentric view do not wish to be associated with what the term "New Age" has popularly come to mean. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:50:17 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <34298B19.185@sprynet.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > You really don't want to know about this one. Every once in a while a dud of > a speaker slips in and every once in a while a genuine nutcase slips in. But > rarely do they use the nutcase for part of a full page ad in a local new-age > paper to bring people in to the TS. Actually, I do. As I said, while I strongly dislike arbitrary sniping at the TSA ("The other day, John Algeo said, 'Have a nice day.' How typical of the mind-controlling, authoritative nature of the TSA to insist on dictating the quality of the day of all the members!"), I have no problem with legitimate beefs. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:37:45 -0700 From: Estrella Subject: Mystery solved Message-ID: <34299639.1BC0@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> > I also agree with Chuck--her idea What!! Chuck is a girl?? Estrella From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:22:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Mystery solved Message-ID: <970924192021_-1095710233@emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-24 18:39:30 EDT, you write: >What!! Chuck is a girl?? > >Estrella That's gonna come as a real surpise to Kathleen, Donna, Mary, Wanda, Grace, Robin, Savannah, 6 Christines, 14 Pams, 3 Joans, 62 Pats and a few other names I may have forgotten over the years. Chuck the Exhausted Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:44:27 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: digest 1252 Message-ID: <3429A5DB.1E46@dmv.com> Nicole Suter wrote: > > To Vincent: "As a child I was aware of having three past lives, which came > to me as innate knowledge and also some visual recollections. I have never > found any true > evidence that my life is ruled by those past lives."... > You speek out of my soul here - I see it exactly the same way. > > "This is a disturbing feature of "Karma"; that emnity from past life > events can be echoed in the present, and in this mans case he was nearly > complelled to repeat his complete actions". > Could you please help me here, I have difficutlies to understand this. If you > see it the way you do write in the first sample, where does the echo come from? > > Nicole Suter The echo was the completely shocking experience of the confontation with man who was so troubled by the life he had led that he was desparately seeking resolution in this life. Perhaps the story is somewhat contradictory in that we have reacted very differently to our past life experience, but he is perhaps an extreem case. I think he can resolve his difficulties, but in ancient times he was an executioner, and in this life he is despartely seeking G-d. My past life recollections are apparently not as graphic as his, and I don't have powerful emotional bonds to those memories. Maybe doctrines of Karma that we have heard are warnings about being in a stiuation such as descibed by his life, but even in his case what he can do now in this life can completely change his experience and future "Karma" or experiences. The world is not simply 'determined'. Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:03:39 -0700 From: Estrella Subject: More on Gouls and yucky stuff Message-ID: <3429AA5B.52B9@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> More on chuck's letter: Probably that's why those pepole look (even if they are sane) very ill and decrepit,almost like a rotten fungus. Don't you haven't notice the looks of those pepole? (like the old fashion look-like witches) Estrella From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:51:00 -0700 From: Estrella Subject: Remains of love Message-ID: <3429A764.3EF7@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> The great love of my life has a similar problem and I have to work my psychic and psionic rear off protecting her from her own telepathic sendings. Chuck the Heretic That remains me of the man i love: Always, i feel the sensation of him protecting me.even if i do not seem to know. Estrella From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:00:21 -0700 From: Estrella Subject: ghouls and yucky stuff Message-ID: <3429A995.7BE@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> > Ok folks, > > I'm gonna try to explain about ghouls here and if you have sensitive stomach > I might suggest you hit the delete button now. > (frendly snip of Chuck's letter) !Very interesting info, Chuck! Thanks ;P Something new to learn.... Estrella From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:22:08 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: New Age defended Message-ID: <199709250025.UAA23084@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: New Age defended > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 4:49 PM > > What I did not state was that, because of the egocentric nature of a > large component of the New Age, and because that component gets most of > the press ("Symposium on Getting Wealth, Power, and Sex with Only 5 > Minutes a Day!"), those who take a less egocentric view do not wish to > be associated with what the term "New Age" has popularly come to mean. > Bart! Bart! I am EGOCENTRIC to the max! Tell me where these seminars are held! A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:33:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970924191357_-596130206@emout08.mail.aol.com> Bart, My stomach will not permit me to write in detail of this disaster, but I suggest you can find out everything you need to know and more at her web page http://www.kitsap.net/pattern/ Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:55:52 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Mystery solved Message-ID: <199709250108.VAA25077@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Estrella > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Mystery solved > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 5:38 PM > > > I also agree with Chuck--her idea > > What!! Chuck is a girl?? > > Estrella Chuck is really a babe - meaning extremely good-looking with a sparkling personality that lights up every room he enters. Unfortunately, not all people want their rooms quite that bright, so sometimes he acquires a bad rep. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:08:00 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga Message-ID: <199709250108.VAA25096@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: on Rules and Yoga > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 12:09 PM > > True. I, however, like to make the following comparison: If you live > in, say, New York City, and wish to climb Mt. Everest, a ship won't take > you to the top. But it can be very useful in getting you close enough > that you can actually try. Now, Krishnamurti is sort of like a guy who > swam the Atlantic Ocean by himself, made the trek all the way to Mt. > Everest, and then climbed it. He says, "You don't need any vehicles to > climb Mt. Everest, and no vehicle will get you to the top of Mt. > Everest." This does not mean that a vehicle can't be extremely helpful > in getting you part, or even most, of the way there. > > It is probably true: no organization will give you enlightenment. But > an organization can very well help you get close enough that you CAN go > the rest of the way yourself, even if you're not a Krishnamurti. > Shucks, Bart! I knew that already. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:06:25 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709250108.VAA25085@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 12:30 PM > > At the New York Lodge, we occasionally have public lectures which we > feel will attract people who, if they knew about Theosophy, would be > attracted to it, not unlike the way H. P. Blavatsky recruited among the > Spiritualists. Our local term, coined by Ed Abdill, is > "glow-in-the-dark" lectures, based on his statement that people want to > see a lecturer stand on the podium, turn off the lights, and glow in the > dark. The sucker must be drinking something awfully powerful. Gatorade? >We do require that such lectures at least have a theosophical > basis, however. For those who wish to give a program that goes farther > afield, How far would you like to go? > but is not against us, we also offer rentals of space (which do > not go into our public program). For example, this fall we have a > lecture on "Your Astrological Chart and the Hidden Key to Your Higher > Self"; not exactly a talk on Theosophy, but those who are interested in > the concept of a "higher self" have a higher likelihood of being > attracted to Theosophy than those who are not. > Bart, you ideas of what can and cannot be spoken of at your space in New York City, sound awfully narrow to me. In fact, your entire post smacks of an elitism that probably drives people away in droves. But I'm sure you'll refute that, most eloquently. Are you sure you want to have me talk to you again? A.Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:16:04 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709250126.VAA00577@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 12:04 PM > > For example, I am preparing a public talk on AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER. > Largely (probably) because of Besant's influence, this otherwise > wonderful little book is marred to the modern reader by the high level > of devotional language (the devotional ray being out of favor these > days), which gets in the way of those readers who find such an attitude > to be sickening (OK, I'm showing MY prejudices here!). Nay, quite appropriate. The sixth Ray is Devotion and is passing out in influence. I feel the same way as you do. > The problem with the "New Age", at least as currently practiced has to > do with what happened largely in the 60's. There was a growing interest > in esotericism among the youth, combined with a growing interest in > Communism. Communism, however, had a postmodernist view towards reality > itself; the belief was that because it is impossible to look at reality > with 100% objectivity, then all views of reality are equally subjective. > This simplified into a belief that the ego is all, and that belief > became combined with the New Age beliefs to make the New Age movement > highly egocentric. THAT is why the TS (and just about any group that has > reached any level of advancement in their esoteric studies) tries to > distance itself from it. > I find all groups egocentric, in their own way. So what's the difference? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:21:28 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709250126.VAA00596@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 12:29 PM > > A. Safron wrote: > > from the Anglican church). Reform the (shhhecret) Masons. Open up to > > astral projection, lucid dreaming, scientific testing and debate? > > The only thing secret about the Masons is their methods of mutual > recognition. It is not a secret society; it is a private society. Major > difference. Masons are not allowed to talk about certain things that > happen during their rituals, but this is part of the ritual. There are > plenty of books by ex-Masons which reveal every detail, including the > signs of mutual recognition. > Yep, knew that one, too, Bart. Just a joke - haha. BTW, the Masons have been trying to get me to join for over 20 years. Quite an egocentric thing to say, but we just never matched up in time, money and transportation. But I have great respect for their basic organization and I sympathize with the tough times they are going through right now. A. Safron :-+ (that's a kiss) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:25:57 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709250126.VAA00616@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 7:44 PM > > Bart, > > My stomach will not permit me to write in detail of this disaster, but I > suggest you can find out everything you need to know and more at her web page > http://www.kitsap.net/pattern/ > > Chuck the Heretic Chuck, I can't even talk about this one. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:08:46 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Digest 1249 Message-ID: In message <34295093.594E@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes > The misunderstanding is possibly because the 5 Books of Moses do not >stand alone. At least according to Jewish tradition, there was an oral >law handed down along with the written law. Now, it is obvious that >there were changes in both over the centuries, almost certainly more so >with the oral law, which was finally transcribed during the time of the >Babylonian Empire into the books known as the Talmud. That's the orthodox version. Others claim [like the Jewish and other kabbalists] that the Jewish establishment wanted to control the oral tradition by ensuring that its own interpretation was the correct one. I expect you know, but for those who don't, there are two Talmuds, the Babylonian, which goes on and on and on and on, and the Palestinian, which is shorter. Prof. Jacob Nesusner has undertaken the massive task of tranlslating the Babylonion (considered definitive) but there is little to find re the Palestinian talmud, which exists in bothe Hebrew and Aramaic rescensions. I only ever saw a copy of the latter, and that in a University library. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:02:05 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: In message <34294B49.1E09@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >There are >plenty of books by ex-Masons which reveal every detail, including the >signs of mutual recognition. Those interested might try to seek out a copy of "Darkness Visible" by Walton Hannaah, London, Augustine Press, 1952. Theosophists of course will probably find easy access to the co-masonic Order, whose rituals are more or less the same, except they allow women and well as men as members. Intellectual information (Hannah is a hostile witness) is no substitute for experience. Advice to the eager - stick with the three craft degrees- that is quite enough. There is no need to continue playing "knock knock, who's there?" forever. Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:11:41 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: In message <34294787.1B37@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >I am preparing a public talk on AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER. >Largely (probably) because of Besant's influence, this otherwise >wonderful little book is marred to the modern reader by the high level >of devotional language (the devotional ray being out of favor these >days), which gets in the way of those readers who find such an attitude >to be sickening (OK, I'm showing MY prejudices here!). But, by removing >the language, there is an excellent summary of how to live one's life >based on the knowledge towards which we are striving (there is, however, >some resistance for my working title for the talk: DO-IT-YOURSELF >ENLIGHTENMENT WITH ONLY 40 CENTS WORTH OF EQUIPMENT). I love it. How about a modern paraphrase? Will you dare? Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:07:10 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Digest 1249 Message-ID: <3429C74E.7EB3@sprynet.com> Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > I expect you know, but for those who don't, there are two Talmuds, the > Babylonian, which goes on and on and on and on, and the Palestinian, > which is shorter. The second one is called the "Jerusalem" Talmud. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 01:45:56 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Immediate Punishing & Learning Message-ID: <2EbsIOAERbK0EwuQ@nellie2.demon.co.uk> In message <199709232322.TAA14549@NetGSI.com>, Jerry Schueler writes >If the universe was set up as a learning institution or school, >as many occult folks like to say--TS folks included--then effects would >follow causes a whole lot faster. Since they dont ...... then >perhaps we are not here to learn lessons at all. Please think about it. >Maybe there is another reason? Opinion: This world (Earth) is a school. A prep school. Here we learn things we shall need for the next life, which is not necessarily on this Earth at all, as there is little evidence to support this notion. The whole theory {note *theory*} or reincarnation and karma is still based (in most TS circles) upon the flawed CWL/Besant model. My two-penn'orth. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:04:04 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <3429C694.4BDB@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > Bart, you ideas of what can and cannot be spoken of at your space in > New York City, sound awfully narrow to me. In fact, your entire > post smacks of an elitism that probably drives people away in droves. I am talking about public lectures, sponsored by the NYTS (and to which we attach our name). If someone wants to TALK about something in one of the informal members' meeting, that's their business. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 02:15:11 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: New Age defended Message-ID: In message <199709241950.PAA13113@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" writes >Last year someone here made a reference to "plebeian New Agers" >as a group that Theosophists had every right to look down on. >I think that conveys an all-too-prevalent attitude. While >Theosophists are busy looking down on seekers, other more >welcoming groups are drawing them in. Many new-agers I have met *look down on Theosophy* - and the Adyar TS in particular. Something to think about .... Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 20:36:05 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Karma/Past Life Message-ID: I've always been torn between two ideas regarding this matter. One the one hand, I would like to believe that we reincarnate, but of that I'm not entirely sure. If we do, which is possible, I don't think karma chooses for us, I think we make the choice ourSelves. One the other hand, I have an idea that we don't reincarnate in the way that many believe. It is quite possible that past life experiences are innate feeling because they are genetic hand-me-downs. As Annette, I am sure, will agree, we have memories of our ancestors available to us as long as we know how to unlock them. Ann referred to this once, I think as the Knowledge, or Memories, of The People, in the Celtic Traditions. It is possible that the genes which carry this information lie dormant in some, and active in others, so that after years and years, one person finally comes along in just the right circumstances and has flashes of being someone else. The two theories are equally believable, but I feel that the latter is much more ...proveable? --- Jaqi. On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Nicole Suter wrote: > To Vincent: "As a child I was aware of having three past lives, which came > to me as innate knowledge and also some visual recollections. I have never > found any true > evidence that my life is ruled by those past lives."... > You speek out of my soul here - I see it exactly the same way. > > "This is a disturbing feature of "Karma"; that emnity from past life > events can be echoed in the present, and in this mans case he was nearly > complelled to repeat his complete actions". > Could you please help me here, I have difficutlies to understand this. If you > see it the way you do write in the first sample, where does the echo come from? > > Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:18:07 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: digest 1255/Vincent Beall Message-ID: Vincent Beall wrote:"The echo was the completely shocking experience of the confontation with man who was so troubled by the life he had led that he was desparately seeking resolution in this life." Now I understand you - yes such experiences can be very shocking. Unfortunately most of people I meet who were alike aren't even aware what the are doing. And if you tell them seven times, if it is the truth one tells, one can be sure that nobody believes it at all. Truth seems to work like this. "Perhaps the story is somewhat contradictory in that we have reacted very differently to our past life experience, but he is perhaps an extreem case. I think he can resolve his difficulties, but in ancient times he was an executioner, and in this life he is despartely seeking G-d. My past life recollections are apparently not as graphic as his, and I don't have powerful emotional bonds to those memories." I guess when you start to remember some past incarnations all what has been graphic is already over and instead of your "own graphic things" you learn to feel these of your brothers and sisters which might be the biger pain because you completly realize it. As long as one is like the person you gave a sample, one is not jet awake what lowers the pain. "Maybe doctrines of Karma that we have heard are warnings about being in a stiuation such as descibed by his life, but even in his case what he can do now in this life can completely change his experience and future "Karma" or experiences." Would that be wonderful if more were thinikg like this ... The world is not simply 'determined'. The world is not "determinded" at all. Nicole From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 12:49:46 +0200 From: Nicole Suter Subject: digest 1254 Message-ID: To Chuck: "I'm gratified to be given the credit, but I didn't write the piece. I simply copied it from an occult humor list I'm on." That's why I wrote you c i t a t e . Nicole Suter From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 07:32:16 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: New Age defended Message-ID: <199709251638.MAA05264@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Dr. A.M.Bain > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: New Age defended > Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 10:03 PM > > In message <199709241950.PAA13113@leo.vsla.edu>, "K. Paul Johnson" > writes > >Last year someone here made a reference to "plebeian New Agers" > >as a group that Theosophists had every right to look down on. > >I think that conveys an all-too-prevalent attitude. While > >Theosophists are busy looking down on seekers, other more > >welcoming groups are drawing them in. > > Many new-agers I have met *look down on Theosophy* - and the Adyar TS in > particular. Something to think about .... > > Alan In any relationship, whatever it may be, parent to child, doctor to patient, boss to employee, the attitude of "looking down" is a losing proposition. There will be always resentment on those talked down to. I have never gotten over the idea that one Theosophist printed in one of the newsletters that "humanity would someday catch up with US." and that everything would be hunky- dory. What a horrible thing to say about your brothers and sisters. It can only mean that those Theosophical individuals are actually insecure and must put themselves on a pedastel in order to feel good about themselves. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:02:35 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970925180235.006bfe0c@mail.eden.com> At 10:52 PM 9/24/97 -0400, you wrote: >A. Safron wrote: >> Bart, you ideas of what can and cannot be spoken of at your space in >> New York City, sound awfully narrow to me. In fact, your entire >> post smacks of an elitism that probably drives people away in droves. > > I am talking about public lectures, sponsored by the NYTS (and to which >we attach our name). If someone wants to TALK about something in one of >the informal members' meeting, that's their business. > > Bart Lidofsky > For a very long time, at the San Antonio Lodge we had nothing but public meetings. In many of them, various lecturers, many of whom did not know the official Theosophy did speak. We invited them to speak because most of them did subscribe to the principle of brotherhood/sisterhood without out any discrimination and were interested in the well being of the fellow human beings. This was also the case in many of the lodges I was a member in India for several decades. Just wanted everyone to know different lodges have different policies in their program scheduling. .........mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 18:42:38 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Karma & Purpose Message-ID: <199709252307.TAA31318@NetGSI.com> >We need a certain looseness on the leash of our karma to learn >the ABCs. As we evolve, our karma is quickened because we can better >assimilate the lessons as quickly as the karma. Titus, I have no problem with "a certain looseness" but I would suggest that 100 manvantaras is a bit too loose. Now, I really do believe that I have been manifesting for more than 100 manvantaras. But I have been forgetting as much as learning, and I have been involving as much as evolving. In short, I have been having fun expressing myself, and I do it over and over not to learn something but for the sheer enjoyment of it all. Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:46:36 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma & Purpose Message-ID: In message <199709252307.TAA31318@NetGSI.com>, Jerry Schueler writes >In short, I have >been having fun expressing myself, and I do it over and over >not to learn something but for the sheer enjoyment of it all. This could well be the "lesson" we all need to learn, especially how to apply it. Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:23:48 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma/Past Life Message-ID: In message , Jaqtarin Samantha Triele writes >As Annette, I am sure, will agree, we have memories of our ancestors >available to us as long as we know how to unlock them. Ann referred to >this once, I think as the Knowledge, or Memories, of The People, in the >Celtic Traditions. It is possible that the genes which carry this >information lie dormant in some, and active in others, so that after years >and years, one person finally comes along in just the right circumstances >and has flashes of being someone else. Definitely, IMO. And sometimes more than flashes, if we work at it. > >The two theories are equally believable, but I feel that the latter is >much more ...proveable? More like probable. I don't see how reliable proof can be obtained, as there are too many alternative explanations of the evidence. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:15:40 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Digest 1249 Message-ID: In message <3429C74E.7EB3@sprynet.com>, Bart Lidofsky writes >Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > >> I expect you know, but for those who don't, there are two Talmuds, the >> Babylonian, which goes on and on and on and on, and the Palestinian, >> which is shorter. > > The second one is called the "Jerusalem" Talmud. > > Bart Lidofsky .. as well as the Palestinian. over ... AB From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:24:17 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <342B1CD1.743B@sprynet.com> ramadoss@eden.com wrote: > > At 10:52 PM 9/24/97 -0400, you wrote: > >A. Safron wrote: > >> Bart, you ideas of what can and cannot be spoken of at your space in > >> New York City, sound awfully narrow to me. In fact, your entire > >> post smacks of an elitism that probably drives people away in droves. > > > > I am talking about public lectures, sponsored by the NYTS (and to which > >we attach our name). If someone wants to TALK about something in one of > >the informal members' meeting, that's their business. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > For a very long time, at the San Antonio Lodge we had nothing but public > meetings. In many of them, various lecturers, many of whom did not know the > official Theosophy did speak. We invited them to speak because most of them > did subscribe to the principle of brotherhood/sisterhood without out any > discrimination and were interested in the well being of the fellow human > beings. This was also the case in many of the lodges I was a member in India > for several decades. Just wanted everyone to know different lodges have > different policies in their program scheduling. That is pretty much our policy for our public program. When I had a "theme" season of members' lectures, all based on articles by H.P.B., attendence went up by about 25-30%. Ever since then, we have geared the members' program towards "straight" theosophical topics, as that is what the members appear to want. The public program is supposed to be a combined attractant and money-raiser, with the former being far more important than the latter (we will sacrifice money for something that will attract people to the Lodge, but not vice-versa. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 21:07:13 -0700 From: ChroniRiggatoni@webtv.net Subject: Borderlands Sciences Research Foundation Message-ID: <199709260407.VAA19429@mailtod-2.alma.webtv.net> --WebTV-Mail-1361354489-3172 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hello! Just in case anyone hasn't heard of BSRF, I've recently found them on-line. IMHO, Serge Kahili King's Quest book on Earth Energies and the reprints of rare editions of THREE of Ruth Drown's books were particularly rewarding... And Tesla... somewhere I have a quote that he thought the Spanish Inquistion had been out to stop what he was doing for us later, namely invent everything electrical. (Some days I'm quite convinced the incandescent light bulb was his too, credited otherwise as a work for hire.) At any rate, I'm hard pressed to think where he got the input per se for a view of the Inquistion like that, but secret discussions between Tesla and Blavatsky or the like strike me as no more unlikely than those between David Bohm and Krishnamurti-- one of the many reasons I'm happy to maintain this interest as, in my own view at least, an extention of theosophical interests. Rob // ChroniRiggatoni@wetv.net --WebTV-Mail-1361354489-3172 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; X-URL-TITLE="Borderlands Sciences Research Foundation"; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT http://www.borderlands.com/index.htm --WebTV-Mail-1361354489-3172-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:29:17 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Farsightedness of TS Objective Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970926122917.00dcb2e0@mail.eden.com> When I watched the celebration of the school desegregation in Arkansas yesterday, I recognized the farsightedness of the Founders when they launched TS and the First Object was formulated. In the society of the day, in 1875 it should have taken a great foresight to come up with the First Object and a great conviction on the part of HPB and Olcott to commit their lives to communicate to the world. One of the little known service that TS in India was TS lodges were at the forefront of defacto "desegregation" in associations. Many of those not belonging to the elite Brahmin class found that TS lodges were the one place they were truly treated as a Brother/Sister and it attracted quite a few to the membership of the TS. 100 years later, can TS come up with an equally foresighted vision? Who knows? What is in the works guided by those Wise Guardians, is only known to Them and I think we all should keep our minds open looking for clues. They may use TS or may have even chartered another organization to further Their Plans. Who knows? Just a thought. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:46:18 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709261247.IAA26040@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Thursday, September 25, 1997 9:26 PM > > > > I am talking about public lectures, sponsored by the NYTS (and to which > > >we attach our name). If someone wants to TALK about something in one of > > >the informal members' meeting, that's their business. > > > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > That is pretty much our policy for our public program. When I had a > "theme" season of members' lectures, all based on articles by H.P.B., > attendence went up by about 25-30%. Ever since then, we have geared the > members' program towards "straight" theosophical topics, as that is what > the members appear to want. The public program is supposed to be a > combined attractant and money-raiser, with the former being far more > important than the latter (we will sacrifice money for something that > will attract people to the Lodge, but not vice-versa. > > Bart Lidofsky That's very heartening. Perhaps it's just your cyber-personality that comes off as being narrow-minded. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:12:27 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <342BFB0B.473B@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > That's very heartening. Perhaps it's just your cyber-personality that comes > off as being narrow-minded. Note that tone of voice and, for the most part, facial expression does not carry into cyber-space. Bart Lidofsky P.S. Do not confuse a sarcastic personality with narrow-mindednesss. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 97 14:39:03 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <199709261839.OAA01291@leo.vsla.edu> Rob comments that it is harder to imagine HPB conversing on familiar terms with a scientist of her own time, Tesla, than to picture Krishnamurti with Bohm. But in fact she far outstripped K. in the number of eminent scientists she knew personally. Alfred Russell Wallace, Thomas Edison (well, not a scientist, but close), Camille Flammarion, Sir William Crookes, for example, were all FTS at one time or another, and all personally acquainted with HPB to a greater or lesser degree. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:16:07 -0700 From: Titus Roth Subject: Re: Karma & Purpose Message-ID: <199709261916.MAA20876@palrel1.hp.com> "Jerry Schueler" wrote: (Titus) >> We need a certain looseness on the leash of our karma to learn >> the ABCs. As we evolve, our karma is quickened because we can better >> assimilate the lessons as quickly as the karma. > Titus, I have no problem with "a certain looseness" but I would > suggest that 100 manvantaras is a bit too loose. Did I miss something? Where did the 100 manvantaras come from? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:25:18 -0700 From: fsc23890@bahia.ens.uabc.mx Subject: Change of adress.. Message-ID: <342C1A2E.1386@bahia.ens.uabc.mx> Hi gang...i guess you're wondering why i put so old posts. well, i didn't had time before to read my mails, and now i could, they told us in school that our e-mails were going to dissapear. i do not know if i can use the netscape mail system for reading hotmail, but here it is my new adress: gidondel@hotmail.com Well, i hope i can...cause hotmail is very very slow.. Estrella P.S. don't amaze if suddenly i pop out of here.I'll be back soon.I hope. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 17:50:06 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Reincarnation & Purpose Message-ID: <199709262206.SAA23511@NetGSI.com> >Opinion: This world (Earth) is a school. A prep school. Here we learn >things we shall need for the next life, which is not necessarily on this >Earth at all, as there is little evidence to support this notion. The >whole theory {note *theory*} or reincarnation and karma is still based >(in most TS circles) upon the flawed CWL/Besant model. > >My two-penn'orth. > >Alan Alan, I am glad you added the "in most TS circles" caveat. I first came across the teaching in HPB, and then G de P, who goes into a lot of fine detail with both inner and outer rounds. I systematically compared G de P with the Tibetan Book of the Dead and found them to be pretty close. His model is a bit more esoteric than AB/CWLs (which still, I think, has some good points). The only thing I really disagree with is the notion that we are here to learn something. Now, in a short-term view this could be true in that the Ego may decide to focus on some particular aspect of life in any one incarnation. But looking at a broader picture (i.e., over manvantaras) I prefer to think we do it out of an inherent desire to self-express rather than learning anything. I still see manifestation as a huge circle, with lots of inner circles and spirals, but an overall circle all the same. The problem of evolution or progression or "learning" is that the process is linear and implies a beginning point. I just don't think that we have any beginning point, nor an end point for that matter. How about this?--we go through the Arc of Descent into matter forgetting stuff, and then go through the Arc of Ascent learning it again. You may ask why bother? And again I am faced with the desire for self-expression as the only real possible answer. But I love to see all the many views and interpretation within the theosophical tent. This is probably the main reason I like theos-l so much. If we all thought the same things, we'd get bored. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 17:53:34 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: New Age Views of Theosophy Message-ID: <199709262206.SAA23513@NetGSI.com> >Many new-agers I have met *look down on Theosophy* - and the Adyar TS in >particular. Something to think about .... > >Alan Alan, you are quite right. I have met many of them. There are two main reasons for this. One is that the TSs lack any quick path or fun techniques. The other is the "sickly-sweet" ethical orientation that most New Agers can't cope with (I have already discussed this one to death). Jerry S. Member, TI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:59:34 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709270002.UAA00304@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Friday, September 26, 1997 1:14 PM > > A. Safron wrote: > > That's very heartening. Perhaps it's just your cyber-personality that comes > > off as being narrow-minded. > > Note that tone of voice and, for the most part, facial expression does > not carry into cyber-space. > > Bart Lidofsky > > P.S. Do not confuse a sarcastic personality with narrow-mindednesss. What astrological sign are you? Or better yet, would you be willing to give out your birth info? Nothing fancy - not even the time if you don't have it. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:37:04 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: New Age Views of Theosophy Message-ID: In message <199709262206.SAA23513@NetGSI.com>, Jerry Schueler writes >>Many new-agers I have met *look down on Theosophy* - and the Adyar TS in >>particular. Something to think about .... >> >>Alan > >Alan, you are quite right. I have met many of them. There are two >main reasons for this. One is that the TSs lack any quick path >or fun techniques. The other is the "sickly-sweet" ethical orientation >that most New Agers can't cope with (I have already discussed >this one to death). I regret to say I have found it to be not so much "sickly sweet" as hypocritical. > Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 00:56:24 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Karma & Purpose Message-ID: In message <199709261916.MAA20876@palrel1.hp.com>, Titus Roth writes >Did I miss something? Where did the 100 manvantaras come from? Maybe they reincarnated? Alan :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 01:35:22 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Reincarnation & Purpose Message-ID: In message <199709262206.SAA23511@NetGSI.com>, Jerry Schueler writes >How about this?--we go through the >Arc of Descent into matter forgetting stuff, and then go >through the Arc of Ascent learning it again. You may ask >why bother? And again I am faced with the desire for >self-expression as the only real possible answer. Maybe that's just how it is. We don't have a say in the business, any more than some plants reappear in roughly the same spot year after year after year after ..... it's just a matter of natural law. In general, we seem to enjoy helping each other out - maybe that's law too. Let's enjoy it, if we can. I remember talking to someone close to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (of Beatles fame) and querying the lifestyle of the guru when he was touring England. He told me, that as he accompanied the guru around the country, he had the opportunity to ask him all the "awkward" questions. His reply, it seems, was along the lines of, "If these people want to spend large amounts of money so that I can tell people about my method, that is their pleasure. My pleasure is to tell people about my method. If they can afford to pay for it, so be it. If not, they do not have to pay for it." I, incidentally, did NOT have to pay for it :-) My [esoteric] acquaintance also told me that when the Maharishi was put up at London's prestigious Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane, he was found sleeping on his goatskin on the floor every morning ... that was what he was used to, and that was what he preferred - wherever he was! Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:05:37 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <342C69F1.6663@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > What astrological sign are you? Or better yet, would you be willing to > give out your birth info? Nothing fancy - not even the time if you don't have it. April 7, 1957, Brooklyn, NY, New Caledonian Hospital. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:21:54 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: New Russian Law on Religious Activities Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970927152154.006a9c98@mail.eden.com> The news Russian Law which restricts activities of outside religious groups. I think the law will not hurt in furthering the dissemination of Theosophy. After all with international access to Internet, and ever expanding availability of classic texts on Internet combined with printed materials are going to go a long way to satisfy the needs of Russian people. We can look forward to more widespread knowledge of Theosophy and perhaps its potential to help Russian people. Just my thoughts. mkr PS: There could be trouble for any formal/informal/open/secret activities of any groups from outside Russia. This should not matter from a real practical standpoint of dissemination of Theosophy - sans politics - both controlled within or outside persons/entities. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 11:30:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <970927113028_577211637@emout15.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-26 14:15:42 EDT, you write: > Note that tone of voice and, for the most part, facial expression does >not carry into cyber-space. > > Bart Lidofsky > >P.S. Do not confuse a sarcastic personality with narrow-mindednesss. > That is very true. I'm much more unpleasant in person. Chuck the Heretic (just kidding) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 19:05:36 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: New Web Page Listings Message-ID: <199709271536.LAA04981@mcfeely.concentric.net> For those interested in the unusual, there are some new links on my page. One is GeekChick and the other is the Church of The Subgenius http://www.concentric.net/~Safron/ A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 11:35:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <970927113532_1429421047@emout13.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-26 14:40:45 EDT, you write: >Rob comments that it is harder to imagine HPB conversing on >familiar terms with a scientist of her own time, Tesla, than to >picture Krishnamurti with Bohm. But in fact she far >outstripped K. in the number of eminent scientists she knew >personally. Alfred Russell Wallace, Thomas Edison (well, not a >scientist, but close), Camille Flammarion, Sir William Crookes, >for example, were all FTS at one time or another, and all >personally acquainted with HPB to a greater or lesser degree. > And they were real scientists who did real experimental work, not hot-air academics like Bohm who sit on their tenure and make ridiculous pronouncements with no hard data to back them up. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:45:07 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: New Russian Law on Religious Activities Message-ID: <342D5433.6839@sprynet.com> M K Ramadoss wrote: > > The news Russian Law which restricts activities of outside religious groups. > I think the law will not hurt in furthering the dissemination of Theosophy. > After all with international access to Internet, and ever expanding > availability of classic texts on Internet combined with printed materials > are going to go a long way to satisfy the needs of Russian people. We can > look forward to more widespread knowledge of Theosophy and perhaps its > potential to help Russian people. By the wording of the law, Theosophy is either not a religion or one of the "approved" list. Either way, it's not hurt by the law. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 14:47:18 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <342D54B6.13C1@sprynet.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > And they were real scientists who did real experimental work, not hot-air > academics like Bohm who sit on their tenure and make ridiculous > pronouncements with no hard data to back them up. We're rapidly getting to the point where experiments to prove new theories in particle physics will require more energy than is available in the measurable universe. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 19:47:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <970927194706_-696652967@emout01.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-27 14:50:59 EDT, you write: > We're rapidly getting to the point where experiments to prove new >theories in particle physics will require more energy than is available >in the measurable universe. > > Bart Lidofsky > Very true. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:38:55 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709280008.UAA10711@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Friday, September 26, 1997 9:07 PM > > A. Safron wrote: > > What astrological sign are you? Or better yet, would you be willing to > > give out your birth info? Nothing fancy - not even the time if you don't have it. > > April 7, 1957, Brooklyn, NY, New Caledonian Hospital. Oh, honey, your'e almost 10 years younger then I am! I'll let you have a brief onceover online. If there's anything particularly kinky, I'll convey it privately. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 19:04:58 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <199709280008.UAA10720@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Bart Lidofsky > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > Date: Friday, September 26, 1997 9:07 PM > > A. Safron wrote: > > What astrological sign are you? Or better yet, would you be willing to > > give out your birth info? Nothing fancy - not even the time if you don't have it. > > April 7, 1957, Brooklyn, NY, New Caledonian Hospital. Sun & Venus in Aries, conjunct. THe sign of the artist. Are you musically, artistically talented and involved. An artisitic sense enters into everything you do, with power and energy and beauty. Mercury in Taurus:Practical, practical, practical! Mars in Gemini: Here we have the love to debate aggressively. This planet is afflicted by Saturn, creating the possibility of sarcasm and rudeness. The aspect in closest orb (.09) is Moon square Venus. You have to be careful about being taken advantage of in relationships. I'm dying to hear how the artist and lover of beauty manifests in your life. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 01:23:25 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Welcome Message-ID: Theosophy International welcomes Jeff Sanders! E-mail welcomes to: jsand51@rocketmail.com Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 15:34:59 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <342D5FE3.5CC9@dmv.com> Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-09-27 14:50:59 EDT, you write: > > > We're rapidly getting to the point where experiments to prove new > >theories in particle physics will require more energy than is available > >in the measurable universe. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > > > Very true. > > Chuck the Heretic I don't think this is so true. It has been said that the search for particles beyond quarks would require a super collider the size of the solar system, and that would not in any way require the energy of the universe. The funny thing about such research is that how would you know that you have found the ultimate particle, and if found what exactly would knowing that do for you. It seems that it isn't even possible to have much of an idea of what particles are beyond what they do; what is substance? Vincent -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 04:38:41 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: New Web Page Listings Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, A. Safron wrote: > For those interested in the unusual, > there are some new links on my page. > > One is GeekChick and the other is > the Church of The Subgenius > > http://www.concentric.net/~Safron/ > > A. Safron Uh oh...do you know Slack? *cringe* please say you only have heard of it.... *laugh* --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 05:34:06 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Darn funny (if not insulting) Message-ID: A friend of mine pointed this out to me...I thought it was hilarious. I hope you find it jst as amusing...if you don't...I'm terribly sorry...:) --- Jaqi. -------------------- This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first: John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary." Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us." Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?" John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you." Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?" John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whateverhe wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass." Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..." Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?" Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..." John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us." Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?" Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..." Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?" John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town." Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?" Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you." Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?" John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money." Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?" John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it." Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?" Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street." Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?" John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'" Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game." John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass, He'll kick the shit of you." Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..." Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank." Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?" John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on." Me: "Who's Karl?" Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times." Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?" John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself." >From the desk of Karl ------------------------ 1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town. 2. Drink only in moderation. 3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you. 4. Eat right. 5. Hank dictated this list Himself. 6. The moon is made of green cheese. 7. Everything Hank says is right. 8. Wash your hands aftergoing to the bathroom. 9. Don't use alcohol. 10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments. 11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you. ------------------------ Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead." Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper." Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting." John: "Of course, Hank dictated it." Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?" Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people." Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?" Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right." Me: "How do you figure that?" Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!" Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up." John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too." Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong." John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure." Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..." Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese." Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese." John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!" Me: "We do?" Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so." Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'" John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking." Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?" Mary: She blushes. John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong." Me: "What if I don't have a bun?" John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong." Me: "No relish? No Mustard?" Mary: She looks positively stricken. John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!" Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?" Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la." John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..." Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." Mary: She faints. John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 09:56:53 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: TSA Membership Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970928145653.006bb540@mail.eden.com> Recently I saw a documentary on the history of TSA. There were two striking facts that caught my attention. 1. After Judge decided to cut off from TS(Adyar), there were very few members in the USA attached to TS(Adyar). TSA was rebuit by a nation wide lecture tour of Annie Besant and Countess Wachtmeister (?). 2. The membership started to climb and took a sudden precipitous drop when Krishnamurti disbanded Order of the Star of the East and made his "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement, in late 1920s. Since then, the membership has never recovered. On the other hand it has been on a slow downward trend in recent days. Has any attempt been made to draw up a plan and try something like what AB and CW did to regain the membership level of old days? Now that the next millenium is approaching, are any plans there to rebuild the membership (if it is all feasible). It appears that if the present trend continues, TSA as a membership organization may disappear in our life time, but may continue as a rich landlord and publishing organization with millions in the bank (and of course accountants and attorneys making a lot of money -- any time a lot of wealth is involved, these two categories do well). Who knows what is in store for the future? Just a thought. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 11:48:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: TSA Membership Message-ID: <970928114821_-899256171@emout07.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-28 11:09:19 EDT, you write: >Has any attempt been made to draw up a plan and try something like what AB >and CW did to regain the membership level of old days? > Let us sincerely hope not. A peculiar combination of lunacy, crackpot politics and child molesting is not likely to have any significant effect on membership numbers. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 14:40:30 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: TSA Membership Message-ID: <199709281948.PAA05450@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: TSA Membership > Date: Sunday, September 28, 1997 9:59 AM > > Has any attempt been made to draw up a plan and try something like what AB > and CW did to regain the membership level of old days? Who want to change things when the people at the top find them perfectly fine the way they are? > > Now that the next millenium is approaching, are any plans there to rebuild > the membership (if it is all feasible). Good question. Seems there was an article in a past newsletter written by an LCC priest that claimed "humanity had to catch up to TS" for there to be any real membership. Gee, golly, if humanity drags its feet, there will be no TS. In other words, there seems to be an idea that the vast unwashed, uneducated and poor people of the world are just goin' have to get movin' and get themselves all properly dressed and educated to meet the TS standards. Till then, the TSers can sit in their ivory tower and tsk-tsk. > A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 14:43:17 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: New Web Page Listings Message-ID: <199709281948.PAA05461@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: New Web Page Listings > Date: Sunday, September 28, 1997 7:39 AM > > On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, A. Safron wrote: > > > For those interested in the unusual, > > there are some new links on my page. > > > > One is GeekChick and the other is > > the Church of The Subgenius > > > > http://www.concentric.net/~Safron/ > > > > A. Safron > > Uh oh...do you know Slack? > *cringe* please say you only have heard of it.... > *laugh* > --- > Jaqi. > Not only have I have I heard of it for 7 years, but I am proud to say that my husband is an ordained minister in the Church of the Subgenius. All it took was $30.00 A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 15:22:22 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: TSA Membership Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970928202222.00e2abd4@mail.eden.com> At 03:48 PM 9/28/97 -0400, A. Safron wrote: >---------- >> From: ramadoss@eden.com >> To: Multiple recipients of list >> Subject: TSA Membership >> Date: Sunday, September 28, 1997 9:59 AM >> >> Has any attempt been made to draw up a plan and try something like what AB >> and CW did to regain the membership level of old days? > >Who want to change things when the people at the top find them perfectly >fine the way they are? >> >> Now that the next millenium is approaching, are any plans there to rebuild >> the membership (if it is all feasible). > >Good question. Seems there was an article in a past newsletter written by an >LCC priest that claimed "humanity had to catch up to TS" for there to be any >real membership. Gee, golly, if humanity drags its feet, there will be no TS. >In other words, there seems to be an idea that the vast unwashed, uneducated >and poor people of the world are just goin' have to get movin' and get themselves >all properly dressed and educated to meet the TS standards. Till then, the TSers >can sit in their ivory tower and tsk-tsk. >> >A. Safron I agree. Theosophy was not just meant for the educated, cultured (?), snobbish elite. It was meant to reach everyone. It can help the vast unwashed, uneducated and poor people. Theosophy is not just all the complicated chains and rounds etc. From its daily application point of view it is for everybody. May be some of the scholarly types may disagree with this novice's point of view, which I have held for a long time. Last time anything that was mentioned on the subject of reaching out to unwashed, uneducated and poor was in a mention by the Board Member from Chicago years ago. Since that time, I have not seen any further discussion by anyone. Has anyone else seen anything I missed? While on the subject, I am reminded of the admonishment that Olcott received from his Guru when the famous preacher was visiting India. Olcott was told that this man with all his rough outer manners, if he were to die a lot of angels will shed tears or something to the effect. Let all the scholars sit on the ivory tower and let us hope the tower itself does not sink taking everyone down with it. Has anyone counted the percentage of doctorates on the faculty of Olcott Institute? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 97 15:27:15 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: New Russian Law on Religious Activities Message-ID: <199709282226.PAA30372@scv3.apple.com> >By the wording of the law, Theosophy is either not a religion or one of >the "approved" list. Either way, it's not hurt by the law. A law restricting religious freedom hurts everyone in the world. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 28 Sep 97 15:28:00 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <199709282226.PAA29422@scv3.apple.com> >>We're rapidly getting to the point where experiments to prove new >>theories in particle physics will require more energy than is available >>in the measurable universe. >Very true. I don't agree. It assumes a simplistic extension of current methods. Scientists are busily working to come up with more efficient particle accelerators and more precise measurement tools. Improvements in astronomy also allow the energies present in the universe to become the empirical basis for better particle physics. I am confident that today's predictions about physics devolving into mere speculation will seem as risible a century from now as statements about the end of invention in Blavatsky's day seem today. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:33:15 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind Message-ID: <342F2F8B.6EC9@sprynet.com> A. Safron wrote: > > ---------- > > From: Bart Lidofsky > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: Re: Karma and the Victorian Mind > > Date: Friday, September 26, 1997 9:07 PM > > > > A. Safron wrote: > > > What astrological sign are you? Or better yet, would you be willing to > > > give out your birth info? Nothing fancy - not even the time if you don't have it. > > > > April 7, 1957, Brooklyn, NY, New Caledonian Hospital. > > Sun & Venus in Aries, conjunct. THe sign of the artist. Are you musically, artistically > talented > and involved. An artisitic sense enters into everything you do, with power and energy and > beauty. You might say. I have worked in game design, worked professionally as a folk-singer/guitarist (computer programming paid better, though...), and somehow ended up as art director in several web projects on which I was consulting. In addition, I successfully pitched a comic book series to an editor at Malibu comics (my timing was bad, however; they folded almost immediately after). > The aspect in closest orb (.09) is Moon square Venus. You have to be careful about > being taken advantage of in relationships. My wife says I'm too trusting of people. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:34:29 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <342F2FD5.83C@sprynet.com> Vincent Beall wrote: > > Drpsionic@aol.com wrote: > > > > In a message dated 97-09-27 14:50:59 EDT, you write: > > > > > We're rapidly getting to the point where experiments to prove new > > >theories in particle physics will require more energy than is available > > >in the measurable universe. > > > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > > > > > > > > Very true. > > > > Chuck the Heretic > > I don't think this is so true. It has been said that the search for > particles beyond quarks would require a super collider the size of the > solar system, and that would not in any way require the energy of the > universe. But particles far more elementary than quarks have been theorized. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 00:43:34 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: New Russian Law on Religious Activities Message-ID: <342F31F6.2C0E@sprynet.com> Tim Maroney wrote: > > >By the wording of the law, Theosophy is either not a religion or one of > >the "approved" list. Either way, it's not hurt by the law. > > A law restricting religious freedom hurts everyone in the world. I didn't say the law was right or wrong; I simply said it did not hurt Theosophy. That does not mean that Theosophists should support it. But if one tries to defend Theosophy from the law, it is a waste, and that is worse than supporting the law. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 01:04:42 -0800 From: Mark Kusek Subject: The Way of Things Message-ID: <342F6F28.191F@withoutwalls.com> "I have never practiced the swami's technique for "heightening consciousness" and I doubt I ever shall. For one thing, I am not sure that I want to be so exclusively aware of either myself or the All in the colorless essence of either. To put it in a dignified way, I prefer to live under the dome of many-colored glass and to rest content with the general conviction that the white radiance of eternity has something to do with it. To put it more familiarly, what I am after is less to meet God face to face than to really take in a beetle, a frog, or a mountain when I meet one." - Joesph Wood Krutch "I'm all for the cosmos. I'll go, too - but with a rose in my hand." - Young Russian Girl, 1965 -------- 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, 29 Sep 1997 06:38:57 -0400 From: Vincent Beall Subject: Re: HPB and scientists Message-ID: <342F8541.3A9C@dmv.com> Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > > > I don't think this is so true. It has been said that the search for > > particles beyond quarks would require a super collider the size of the > > solar system, and that would not in any way require the energy of the > > universe. > > But particles far more elementary than quarks have been theorized. > > Bart Lidofsky That is what I am speaking of; particles "beyond quarks". -- vincent@dmv.com http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 07:29:28 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: TSA Membership Message-ID: <199709291236.IAA19898@mcfeely.concentric.net> ---------- > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: TSA Membership > Date: Sunday, September 28, 1997 3:25 PM > > Let all the scholars sit on the ivory tower and let us hope the tower itself > does not sink taking everyone down with it. Has anyone counted the > percentage of doctorates on the faculty of Olcott Institute? > PHd's and MD's and MDA's can go far to validate an organization in this modern world. But who is there to represent the common man? A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 12:09:42 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <199709291609.MAA09569@leo.vsla.edu> Come now, people. The problem with TSA snobbishness and exclusivity has next to nothing to do with scholars. Yes, there's a President in the US who was recently described to me as "pompous and pedantic." But the real membership slide occurred during his predecessor's tenure, not his. And the International President has no scholarly publications to her credit, but sets the tone of "let the world catch up with us." It's *spiritual* elitism that is the problem, not *intellectual* elitism. There are only a handful of Theosophists who think they're intellectual paragons, but a hell of a lot who think they're "further along on the path" than the rest of humanity. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 13:32:00 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Re: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970929183200.00dd03f0@mail.eden.com> At 12:10 PM 9/29/97 -0400, you wrote: >Come now, people. The problem with TSA snobbishness and >exclusivity has next to nothing to do with scholars. Yes, >there's a President in the US who was recently described to me >as "pompous and pedantic." But the real membership slide >occurred during his predecessor's tenure, not his. And the >International President has no scholarly publications to her >credit, but sets the tone of "let the world catch up with us." I thought the real slide took place in early 30s soon after Krishnamurti's "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement. Correct me if I am wrong. > >It's *spiritual* elitism that is the problem, not >*intellectual* elitism. There are only a handful of >Theosophists who think they're intellectual paragons, but a >hell of a lot who think they're "further along on the path" >than the rest of humanity. > Anyone can be deluded into thinking how far along one is "further along on the path". How is the progress measured objectively? When I saw the Krishnamurti litigation in which D. Rajagopal and three of the Trustees of Krishnamurti Trusts suing Krishnamurti for 9 million dollars, it made me wonder. Here is D. Rajagopal who was declared as having passed his 2nd Initiation suing Krishnamurti who was considered as the vehicle of the second coming of Christ, one wonders about how one reconciles the actions of those who are considered to be further along the path. I don't see any difference between anyone further along the path and a common man/woman. They seem to look alike. I guess the fundamental problem seems to be one of priorities of TS. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97 11:25:30 -0700 From: Tim Maroney Subject: Re: New Russian Law on Religious Activities Message-ID: <199709291824.LAA29568@scv4.apple.com> >> >By the wording of the law, Theosophy is either not a religion or one of >> >the "approved" list. Either way, it's not hurt by the law. >> A law restricting religious freedom hurts everyone in the world. >I didn't say the law was right or wrong; I simply said it did not hurt >Theosophy. And I simply disagreed with you. Human rights are everyone's rights. Theosophy is terribly hurt by this; it could only be hurt worse by appearing complacent toward it. As the law is completely at odds with the three objects of the Society (not to mention the Russian Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), I expect we will be hearing very loud protests from the Theosophical leadership. Any day now. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 16:56:06 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: The Bell Tolls Message-ID: <199709292256.QAA06466@mailmx2.micron.net> Tim wrote: >And I simply disagreed with you. Human rights are everyone's rights. >Theosophy is terribly hurt by this; it could only be hurt worse by >appearing complacent toward it. As the law is completely at odds with the >three objects of the Society (not to mention the Russian Constitution and >the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), I expect we will be hearing >very loud protests from the Theosophical leadership. Any day now. Amen, Tim, Amen. . . "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." Elie Wiesel Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 18:12:32 -0500 From: ramadoss@eden.com Subject: Free News from CNN Message-ID: <2.2.32.19970929231232.00daca2c@mail.eden.com> Here is something interesting: UICKNEWS MAIL ============== Get news updates by e-mail -------------------------- You can get news delivered to you, every day. CNN Interactive's QuickNews Mail allows users to get all the day's top stories, from U.S. and world news to business news -- and sports and political stories from CNN/SI Interactive and AllPolitics.com. Every morning, CNN Interactive will send a complete news summary to your e-mail address. It's free! And, it's available in text or HTML format. Try it out and tell us what you think: http://CNN.com/QUICKNEWS/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:37:27 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <199709292357.TAA07877@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: K. Paul Johnson > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Scholar bashing > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:10 AM > >snip< > It's *spiritual* elitism that is the problem, not > *intellectual* elitism. There are only a handful of > Theosophists who think they're intellectual paragons, but a > hell of a lot who think they're "further along on the path" > than the rest of humanity. They must be so far down that path we can't even see them anymore. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 17:46:52 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <199709292357.TAA07889@cliff.concentric.net> ---------- > From: ramadoss@eden.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Scholar bashing > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 1:35 PM > > At 12:10 PM 9/29/97 -0400, you wrote: > >Come now, people. The problem with TSA snobbishness and > >exclusivity has next to nothing to do with scholars. Yes, > >there's a President in the US who was recently described to me > >as "pompous and pedantic." But the real membership slide > >occurred during his predecessor's tenure, not his. And the > >International President has no scholarly publications to her > >credit, but sets the tone of "let the world catch up with us." > > I thought the real slide took place in early 30s soon after > Krishnamurti's "Truth is a Pathless Land" statement. Correct me if I am wrong. > IMHO, Krishnamurti and the concept of the World Teacher manifesting gave everyone a focus, sort of like a guru or spiritual leader, that if they worked toward, they would be given initiations, knowledge, enlightenment, peace, etc. When K left, they lost their focus and were told to go on their own. Not many people can do that. I also think that that was a time of outlandish behavior and promises of a World Teacher that were made to the world. When it fell apart, TS looked even stranger of an organization than it had in the first place. The question, seventy years later, is what does TS have to offer that others don't? How does it relate to daily life and fit in with the busy life of the 90's? The wisdom will always there, but maybe it needs a new package. I've heard Depak Chopra many times on television and marvel at the way he's taken yoga concepts that I learned at the feet of my guru, put on a suit to look like an American businessman, cut his hair and put it across with that wonderful voice of his. He is the yogi of today. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:42:28 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: New Web Page Listings Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Sep 1997, A. Safron wrote: > > Uh oh...do you know Slack? > > *cringe* please say you only have heard of it.... > > *laugh* > > --- > > Jaqi. > > > Not only have I have I heard of it for 7 years, but > I am proud to say that my husband is an ordained minister > in the Church of the Subgenius. All it took was $30.00 > > A. Safron *smile* HAIL BOB! ~D :-/ (I had a friend that would never stop talking about it...he made me nervous...) --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:30:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <970930002931_421099887@emout03.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-29 19:58:30 EDT, you write: >They must be so far down that path we can't even see them >anymore. > >A. Safron Actually, they fell in the big hole about a mile back and we lost them. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 07:43:48 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <199709301245.IAA25387@marconi.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Scholar bashing > Date: Monday, September 29, 1997 11:31 PM > > In a message dated 97-09-29 19:58:30 EDT, you write: > > >They must be so far down that path we can't even see them > >anymore. > > > >A. Safron > > Actually, they fell in the big hole about a mile back and we lost them. > > Chuck the Heretic Damn! I wish I would of thought of that one. You must be one of those advanced folks! A. SAfron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 97 12:05:46 EDT From: "K. Paul Johnson" Subject: K. and membership Message-ID: <199709301605.MAA18610@leo.vsla.edu> Doss, in a sense you are right but I would suggest that the members lost after K's defection were there only because of him in the first place. Drawing on memory (I can check for exact details) TS membership didn't reach 10,000 during HPB's life, didn't hit 20,000 during Olcott's, and didn't exceed 30,000 until the 1920s once the Krishnamurti craze was in full effect. It skyrocketed to about 45,000 by 1928 but then was back to 30,000 or so five years later where it has stayed ever since. So there was no long-term trend indicated by the K. situation; just the loss of a very artificially inflated growth. For over sixty years international membership has been stagnant, (not declining) but as world population has tripled that means Theosophists have one a third the relative presence of 60 years ago. But the slide I was talking about was in the American section, which had been steady in the 5-6000 range for years until the treatment of Bing Escudero and other perceived problems with the Abbenhouse administration sent it downward. Is it under 4000 yet? Since ULT and Pasadena don't report membership statistics, one can only guess that they are not growing according to lack of new branches/lodges in the US. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:21:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <970930131840_1754594659@emout12.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-30 04:47:08 EDT, you write: >He is the yogi of today. > >A. Safron He goes after pic-a-nic baskets while snookering Mr. Ranger? Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:25:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Scholar bashing Message-ID: <970930132417_1098328421@emout15.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-30 11:28:58 EDT, you write: >Damn! I wish I would of thought of that one. You must be one of those >advanced folks! > >A. SAfron Yep, and getting very tired of waiting for everyone else to catch up! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 13:45:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: K. and membership Message-ID: <970930134237_317367146@emout16.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-30 12:14:42 EDT, you write: >But the slide I was talking about was in the American section, >which had been steady in the 5-6000 range for years until the >treatment of Bing Escudero and other perceived problems with >the Abbenhouse administration sent it downward. Is it under >4000 yet? No, it seems stabilized at about 4,000. Actually, there seems little question in my mind that the whole Krishnamurti period is one of the great embarrassments that Theosophy has to overcome. The nonsensical idea of a "world teacher" and the idea that that teacher would be as boring as Krishnamurti was a blunder almost as great as CWL's visions of life on Mars, when he wasn't drooling over the latest choirboys. It is impossible to read the literature of that period without coming to the conclusion that the society's membership was made up of gullible imbeciles who make New Agers look intelligent and circumspect by comparison, because only complete and utter fools would take anything those people said seriously. Just read the account of the day when all the assembled morons threw themselves at Krishnamurti's feet when if they had any brains they would have simply thrown up. Better to have a society that respects scholarship (usually) than one made up of the dregs of the IQ pile. Let those fools look for THE PATTERN and leave us alone. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 11:45:54 -0600 From: "John R. Crocker" Subject: Advanced Message-ID: <199709301746.LAA10869@selway.umt.edu> >>Damn! I wish I would of thought of that one. You must be one of those >>advanced folks! On a serious note, I'm curious about opinions on the list .... 1. What *is* "advanced"? 2. By what outward signs would you recognize "advancement"? 3. Do you need to *be* "advanced" to recongize "advancement"? Really curious, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:24:30 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: K. and membership Message-ID: <199709302125.RAA09456@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: Drpsionic@aol.com > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: K. and membership > Date: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 12:46 PM > > In a message dated 97-09-30 12:14:42 EDT, you write: > > >But the slide I was talking about was in the American section, > >which had been steady in the 5-6000 range for years until the > >treatment of Bing Escudero and other perceived problems with > >the Abbenhouse administration sent it downward. Is it under > >4000 yet? > > No, it seems stabilized at about 4,000. > > Actually, there seems little question in my mind that the whole Krishnamurti > period is one of the great embarrassments that Theosophy has to overcome. > The nonsensical idea of a "world teacher" and the idea that that teacher > would be as boring as Krishnamurti was a blunder almost as great as CWL's > visions of life on Mars, when he wasn't drooling over the latest choirboys. > Even more nonsensical, if there can be such a thing, is that K seemed to have no interest in being "world teacher". He detested rituals, yet was forced to attend. If he was the best choice they had, no wonder it all fizzled out. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:19:27 -0500 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: Advanced Message-ID: <199709302125.RAA09444@newman.concentric.net> ---------- > From: John R. Crocker > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Advanced > Date: Tuesday, September 30, 1997 12:46 PM > > >>Damn! I wish I would of thought of that one. You must be one of those > >>advanced folks! > > On a serious note, I'm curious about opinions on the list .... > > 1. What *is* "advanced"? > 2. By what outward signs would you recognize "advancement"? > 3. Do you need to *be* "advanced" to recongize "advancement"? > > Really curious, > -JRC First of all, one would be not to act and talk like you are more advanced than anyone else. You'd think of other people first. Not talk down to them and really listen to them when they are saying. I've had two people in my life that showed their advancement by their outward appearance. They always had a big smile and hello whenever they met you. They made you feel like the most important person in the world. One was a Methodist who was 80 and died a few years ago. The other was a yogi who died of AIDS in his forties in the late 80's. Yes, I believe one pumpkin will recognize another more readily. A. Safron From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 16:09:41 -0600 (MDT) From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: Advanced Message-ID: <199709302209.QAA07199@mailmx.micron.net> JRC wrote: >On a serious note, I'm curious about opinions on the list .... > >1. What *is* "advanced"? To me, the word advanced really wouldn't apply to what it means to be "advanced." I think a being who is "advanced" has simply remembered from whence they "come," and have re-recognized the divinity within themselves and in all. >2. By what outward signs would you recognize "advancement"? I personally tend to see "advancement" as an unassuming compassion, an empathy (not sympathy or pity) for all, and the ability to bring back to life the happiness and contentment buried within us. But I also side with the Dalai Lama in that an "advanced" being could reincarnate into anything that would help humanity - be it a dog, tree, bug, gorilla. . . So to apply "human attributes" to a being which is "advanced" may be in grave error. >3. Do you need to *be* "advanced" to recongize "advancement"? Hmmm, a being always knows when they are in the presence of a "holy" being - Attila the Hun would have recognized it. We are recognizing who we really are in the presence of that "holy" being - and sometimes it's scary. But humans, animals, trees, flowers, etc. . .all know when they are in the presence of a being who is "advanced." Thanks, JRC! It felt good to stop and really think. . .a bit painful at first, though. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:27:28 -0400 From: "Mark Jaqua" Subject: Scholar Bashing Message-ID: <199709302322.TAA08388@sparticus.bright.net> Well... Some Adepts and Chelas must be the scholar-types, otherwise how could the SD have been written, and witness Subba Row or Purucker. Of course in today's egalitarian climate its unfashionable and ego-damaging to postulate that there are any persons ahead of the majority evolution-wise. 'But if there aren't, where are we all headed for? Surely we don't all march in step en masse, none ahead and none behind. - Jake From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:24:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: K. and membership Message-ID: <970930192402_1332647724@emout11.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-09-30 17:42:03 EDT, you write: >Even more nonsensical, if there can be such a thing, is that K seemed to >have no interest in being "world teacher". He detested rituals, yet was >forced to >attend. If he was the best choice they had, no wonder it all fizzled out. > >A. Safron It would have been nice if someone had pointed out to them that there has never been and probably will never be a "world teacher." Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:04:47 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Advanced Message-ID: In message <199709302125.RAA09444@newman.concentric.net>, "A. Safron" writes >Yes, I believe one pumpkin will recognize another more readily. > >A. Safron Hi there, pumpkin! Alan [tee hee] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 01:00:46 +0100 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Advanced Message-ID: In message <199709301746.LAA10869@selway.umt.edu>, "John R. Crocker" writes > >On a serious note, I'm curious about opinions on the list .... > >1. What *is* "advanced"? IMO, a movement away from materialistic living towards spiritual living. >2. By what outward signs would you recognize "advancement"? See my picture on the website [joke]. I think it is easier to see the lack of it, usually manifesting as vaious sorts of "power trips" >3. Do you need to *be* "advanced" to recongize "advancement"? Seems logical, but we would only recognize others close to the level (?) we had reached ourselves. An important question is "What is the unit or method of measurement?" > Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:41:41 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: A classic ? Message-ID: <34319C45.5DBD@globalserve.net> My contribution to the debate on Karma: > > A woman accompanied her husband to the doctor's office. > > After his checkup, the doctor called the wife into his > > office alone. > > > > He said, "Your husband is suffering from a very severe disease, > > combined with horrible stress. If you don't do the following, > > your husband will surely die." > > > > "Each morning, fix him a healthy breakfast. Be pleasant, and make > > sure he is in a good mood. For lunch make him a nutritious meal. > > For dinner prepare an especially nice meal for him. > > Don't burden him with chores, as he probably had a hard day. > > Don't discuss your problems with him, it will only make his stress > > worse. And most importantly, make love with your husband several > > times a week and satisfy his every whim." If you can do this forthe > > next 10 months to a year, I think your husband will regain his health > > completely. > > > > On the way home, the husband asked his wife. > > > > "What did the doctor say?" > > > > "You're going to die," she replied. What can I say? your debates, accounting, people, life ....exhausts me. And ..... Doss is now carrying a gigantic, heavy key at the end of a thick yellow chord tied around his waist, and Chuck's mouth is a fountainhead from which a torrent started to come and has now receeded to a trickle - pity, I was just getting excited. But, seriously, I am forever, there is no time, separation is impossible. In the "enlightened" moments (and they come at the darndest times) this feeling of love overwhelms me. Annette. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:28:01 -0800 (AKDT) From: Jaqtarin Samantha Triele Subject: Re: Advanced Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, John R. Crocker wrote: > >>Damn! I wish I would of thought of that one. You must be one of those > >>advanced folks! > > On a serious note, I'm curious about opinions on the list .... > > 1. What *is* "advanced"? A: Dead. > 2. By what outward signs would you recognize "advancement"? A: A significant drop in body temperature, no pulse, and an unusual lack of animated expression. > 3. Do you need to *be* "advanced" to recongize "advancement"? A: No. But it is highly unusual for someone to be advanced and tell someone else what advancement is. Fortunately, we do have those cases where a few candles and some gibberish provide the unadvanced with the valuable information necessary for understanding what advancement is all about. > > Really curious, > -JRC Really unadvanced, --- Jaqi. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:33:51 -0400 From: libidia Subject: Re: the see-r Message-ID: <3431A87F.79D4@globalserve.net> > Note that tone of voice and, for the most part, facial expression does > not carry into cyber-space. > > Bart Lidofsky > Got to disagree. Annette From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:59:23 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: the see-r Message-ID: <3431AE7A.6DC@sprynet.com> libidia wrote: > > > Note that tone of voice and, for the most part, facial expression does > > not carry into cyber-space. > > > > Bart Lidofsky > > > Got to disagree. Extreme puzzlement. Bart Lidofsky