From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 12:33:20 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The January THEOSOPHY WORLD is Out The January issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD just came out. It's contents are: "Theosophy and Politics," by Eldon Tucker "Point Loma Publications is Now on the Internet," by Michael E. Bartlett "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "The Personification of Barriers to the Path," by Annette Rivington "The End of THEOSOPHIA" "Considering the Tarot," by Gerald Schueler "Inner Certainty," by Eldon Tucker "The Brahmanical Code," by Dallas TenBroeck "Women in the Theosophical Movement," Part II, by James Santucci "The Source and Value of the 'Mysteries,'" by H. S. Olcott THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 05:35:47 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: December 31, 1998 == "Rebels" who delayed incarnation into physical mankind Dec 1st 1999 Happy new Year to you Murray. If one desires to trace the triple pathway of evolution for the human-soul, I think one might begin on p. 181 of SD I where that triple line is described. Briefly, as I understand it: MAN (and WOMAN) is a SOUL - MANAS. When this MANAS is "lit up" by the proximity of the Dhyanis who are its tutors (just as adults light up the mind of children in our own families) it becomes independent. Since MANAS is an immortal MONAD it has access to all the wisdom and knowledge of Nature all around it. It has already been through numerous incarnations. The physical body is the result of the natural evolution in the lower kingdoms of all those monads which will eventually become independent MANASES and pass into the HUMAN KINGDOM. In the meantime not only does "Natural impulse" propel them but they are influenced for better or worse by the impact of the will of Human Minds. These non-individualized MONADS become the "Skandhas" and are the bearers of Man's individual Karma. The Dhyanis (the wise) incarnate along with (or "in") the human form so as to assist the independent MANAS (a MONAD which has entered the MANASIC stage of its evolution) This is a voluntary sacrifice made to assist in the general program of evolution, but, as stated in THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE at the end of the 3rd Fragment (pp. 76-78) the graduate has a final choice: to become selfishly isolated and enter "Nirvana," or to continue to participate in Evolution by this process of co-habitation. In the SD are some very interesting references that relate to this matter. Please see: SD I 87 105 130 150fn 159 210 248 267 574 II 69 87-9fn 93-98 SD II 167 186 241 246 254-5fn 275 293 If you have TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE (ULT Edn.) pp 66 to 76 deals with the same idea and HPB there answers questions about the relationship of the HIGHER SELF (the Dhyani) and the "personal or Lower Manas" which is active in each of us in the waking condition of our daily lives. I mention these because the accumulated information offered there is suggestive of a solution, to me, along the lines I write above. See if you get the same kind of ideas out of those pages. Dallas. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1999 08:58:58 -0500 (EST) From: rpc@vnet.net Subject: Titanic disaster Could someone send me or repost the artical on the Egypt Titanic connection. rpc@vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:39:49 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 1/5 In response to posting an excerpt on CWL's clairvoyance, some questions were raised. I am posting the five part msg from which I excerpted the passage. mkr ========= Hi Rob, I'd like to follow your example and post a K text. I got it from David Walker who gathered together a small e-mail group of people interested in k. He mailed it to us in five discrete segments. I'll do the same. I don't know enough about computers to do it otherwise. Regards, Hermann David Walker wrote: Dear Friends, This is the first piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling his dialogues with Krishnamurti. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P R O L O G U E During my encounters with people many asked me to write of my dialogues with Krishnamurti, even knowing I would be retrieving them only from my memory since only a few had been recorded. So it was that I started to think of writing some of my memories down. Nevertheless, some other friends felt that it was unnecessary to write my memories since Krishnamurti had done such a beautiful work of exposition of life and truth for mankind with his own books, videos and audiotapes. I hope that anyone who reads "My Dialogues with Krishnamurti" feels the need to read Krishnamurti himself. I have almost stopped reading, and if I do it is only to read "Krishnamurti Journals" or "Commentaries On Living" by Krishnamurti and "Collected Works of Krishnamurti" (17 volumes Kendall-Hunt) (1933-1967). Looking For The North Political contradiction in Argentina was always high. It came to one of its highest points, though, by the end of August 1972. During this time a group of leftist, guerrilla men and women were killed while in jail at Trelew-Argentina, and I was horrified to hear that one of them had been a friend of the family. I started to get phone calls prompting me to take sides in the armed struggle: "If you are not for the left you are for the right", a man's voice had told me on the phone before he hung-up while I was taking care of a recently born baby in Villada, Argentina, Aug. 23rd 1972. The following day I went to Buenos Aires to get a visa to the U.S.A. (1972). If man looses respect for life we are all at risk from each other. Man becomes his own executioner. Only after two years I got a temporary visa to enter the U.S.A. Every Argentinian was suspicious then. I stopped over in Puerto Rico. There was a man there I wanted to meet: Enrique Biascoechea. I did meet him. He was dying. He had been a friend of Krishnamurti since age nine. He wrote a letter to Krishnamurti telling him that I had left behind my parents, two baby sons, possessions, friends, profession, comfort, and status in order to travel to meet with him. That was in June 1974. Enrique died in Nov 1974. After reaching the U.S. I soon found myself working 16 hours a day as a resident physician in Pennsylvania. I needed a dictionary to dictate my notes. Of the other eight hours of the day I spent four in the basement to study medicine in English to revalidate my license. I slept three or four hours a day and ate only once a day, taking coffee in the morning and again at lunchtime simply to keep myself awake. Sometimes I wondered how my body could bear so much abuse! I got letters from Argentina: "Misery. My family and my friends kept disappearing". I had given up hope to meet Krishnamurti when I got a letter from Mrs. Zimbalist, dated Jan. 5th 1975 in Ojai, California telling me I had a personal interview with Krishnamurti on march 23rd at 4 P.M. at the Huntington Hotel in San Francisco, California. Mrs. Zimbalist volunteered her time for Krishnamurti as a devoted secretary. She is the widow of the late Sam Zimbalist who had produced the reknowned film "Ben Hur". At four P.M. on March 23rd 1975 sharp I knocked at Krishnamurti's door. Mrs. Zimbalist did everything to make me feel comfortable. Krishnmurti came after five minutes. I stood up from the armchair to shake his hand. He looked smaller than I expected him to be. He wore an old blue jacket. He sat in front of me with nothing in between the two chairs. Mrs. Zimbalist left silently. We sat there looking at each other. I will never be able to describe that moment when Krishnmurti was gazing at me. I felt at the same time all the love I had felt for my parents, my sons, my girlfriends, my friends (dead or alive)... There was long silence. Krishnamurti said: Biascoechea says you are ready to work for the Foundation. I said: I may not be wise or free enough for that. Krishnamurti: You will. Ruben: What would the work imply? Krishnamurti: Publishing books, videos and tapes. Ruben: That implies managing money. Krishnamurti: Millions of dollars. Ruben: That horrifies me. I'm not ready for that. I thought I would have to travel with you, type your lectures from recorded tapes.... things like that. Krishnamurti: (Laughing) You can do more than that Dr... Ruben: My name is Ruben Ernesto Feldman-Gonzalez. Krishnamurti: That's confusing, may I call you Dr. Gonzalez? Ruben: Of course, but my real name is Anger. Krishnamurti: (touching my left knee) Ah! I'm glad you don't wear a mask like so many that come to me pretending to be saints. Ruben: I'm far from that. I feel a complete repugnance for the so-called political situation of Argentina, my country of birth, and even for the way my profession is practiced. I'm a pediatric surgeon. I had started to study psychiatry (July 1974) in Pennsylvania to see why the world has gone so crazy. Nevertheless I'm not impressed, the approach to treatment in psychiatry is conventional... standardized. I'll leave psychiatry too. I don't know what I will do. Krishnamurti: Don't leave psychiatry. Change it. Ruben: I never thought you would give me concrete advice like that. It sounds absurd though. Changing psychiatry sounds like changing the color of the crickets of the world. Krishnamurti: You have to change psychiatry. Ruben: I wish I knew what you meant. Krishnamurti: You have to meet Dr. David Bohm in London. Let's go there soon. Ruben: I wish I could, perhaps if I get a loan. Krishnamurti: No! Don't ask for a loan. You'll meet him soon anyway. Ruben: I need to make changes. I have no peace. Friends have disappeared in Argentina. Everything seems so chaotic and corrupt.... Krishnamurti: (smiling) You need exercise (Krishnamurti touched my belly with the tip of his left index finger). Ruben: I work 16 hours a day and then I have to sit to study for four hours a day before I go to sleep. All this to renew my medical license in the USA. Krishnamurti: That's an excuse. Take care of yourself. You need exercise. You look like a bull. Ruben: Sometimes I feel that I need to share my understanding with people around the world. What do you say to that? Krishnamurti: You speak. A very long silence followed. I had expected him to tell me to "stay put" and spend the rest of my life in silent meditation. With very few words he was the perfect mirror for my own contradictions to emerge and be clearly seen. He insisted: The Foundation in Puerto Rico has no head. I hope you will take it (he grabbed my left knee). Ruben: Krishnaji, when I was with Biascoechea everything seemed so easy. Now I see I don't have the peace of mind, the right skills nor the freedom (the sons and two parents to feed) to dedicate myself sensibly to such an important and difficult task. It is certainly no picnic. Krishnamurti: I hope you take it. Another long silence followed. Krishnamurti discussed several items regarding the Foundation's translations, people like Salvado Sendra, Vimala Thakar, personal and ideological struggles within the Foundations, etc. Ruben: I'm eager to meet Salvador and Vimala... but people from the Fourth Path are trying to mix what you say with what others have said and are quite willing to control the Foundations. Krishnamurti: That has been going on all the time and not only with them. The Fourth Path is a path of violence which reinforces the ego and the wish to control life and its course. Do not touch it. The first insight is to drop everything non-essential for the total liberation of mankind. Ruben: Now that you mention the non-essential.... Why did you allow the biography of yours written by Lutyens to be published? It's gossipy and superficial, and it may not be right selling "At the Feet of the Master" ... with your name on it. Krishnamurti: Not my books. Ruben: And they are making a profit. Krishnamurti: It's not my business. Ruben: How would you recommend your books to be read, and in what order? Krishnamurti: Do not read them like a novel. Read slowly as if your life was in every word and every sentence. Start with the last one and then if there is an interest go backwards through the first one. Ruben: Should we read all your books? Krishnamurti: If you take a train in San Francisco to go to Los Angeles... would you get off in Santa Barabara? We both laughed. One had to laugh very often in the company of Krishnamurti. Today the order of the books would be: "Ending of Time" "The Awakening of Intelligence" "Commentaries on Living" "Journal" "Freedom from the Known", etc. "Collected Works" (1933-67) I asked: Why don't you eat meat? He answered: Pity. I expected a longer lecture but that was all he said. Again a long silence. The silence was alive, the silence of two alert friends seeing together the same thing at the same time. He stood up and said. "Excuse me Dr. Gonzalez, I'll prepare some tea for you". At the kitchen in the big suite he whispered something with Mrs. Zimbalist who was sitting there. He came back with a cup of tea. He said: "Tea of roses for you". I sipped it, but I didn't like it. I left it on the little table beside us. Ruben: Can we talk about meditation? Krishnamurti: Is there anything else? Ruben: Well, the very word meditation is used by gurus of all kinds to make money, sell silly books, techniques, pillows, crystals, mantras, and incense. Krishnamurti: I have been using the word for 50 years. I can't change it now. People will have to see I use the word with a different meaning. I do not use the word meditation with its traditional meaning! Ruben: What about using the expression "Unitary Perception" instead. Krishnamurti: You use it. (Krishnamurti said he would not use the word meditation anymore during his last talk in England in 1985, ten years later.) Krishnamurti: Why not live very simply? Call it meditation or Unitary Perception. Self protection and self aggrandizement through money making and success have to end in order to live simply. To live simply is to live intelligently, without an observer in observation. If you believe you have to go back to Argentina to be loyal to some concept of yours you are not simple. If you are angry you are not simple. If you are full of sorrow you can't love anyone. Can you be spontaneous and simply act with not too much planning? Ruben: You are not saying I have to remain alone and live in poverty and silence. Krishnamurti: Would that be simple? Would you be escaping from life? The consummation of truth is not to be successful or wealthy... but do you want complete truth? Look for success or money and you'll find frustration. Look for truth and you'll receive total peace of mind and joy. Will you be one of the few? Or will you continue being one of the many worshippers of money and success? After a long silence, he said: "Dr. Gonzalez, your tea must be cold already, finish it!" I didn't have the courage to say no and I did finish it silently. He said: "Let's meet tomorrow at eight A.M. Krishnamurti went with me to the door, opened it for me and smiled lovingly saying: "Good bye". I said: What noun should be applied to what you teach-- "message", "gospel",..., or what? Krishnamurti said: Call it "the teachings". Let's meet tomorrow at eight A.M., right here. I spend the rest of the afternoon by myself in my room, which I had rented at the same hotel where Krishnamurti was staying. I felt like a Condor for the rest of the day. I met Krishnamurti by chance in the lobby that evening. I walked with him for awhile. I saw a couple of very beautiful girls. I said: "God, how beautiful they are". He said: "Only well fed". I said: "Krishnaji, I felt like a Condor the whole afternoon, full of peace and joy and love. I think it's because I spent some time with you." Krishnamurti said: "For how long do you want to be infected?" - From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:41:35 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 2/5 Part two: David Walker wrote: Dear Friends, This is the second piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling his dialogues with Krishnamurti. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Untie the Ocean (Intimate dialogues with Krishnamurti) Memorized after the encounter--not recorded on audiotape I met Krishnamurti on March the 23rd 1975 in San Francisco, California. I have already written about that. My last name is Feldman Gonzalez but Krishnamurti addressed me only as Dr. Gonzalez. March 24, 1975 (Huntington Hotel - San Francisco, California) Krishnamurti: Sorry, I made you wait. I was doing some Hatha Yoga. Ruben: No problem. Thank you for receiving me again. I would like to discuss the fact that you are the instructor of the world (or the Second Coming). Krishnamurti: You worry about the irrelevant. Ruben: It is relevant for me, because if you are the Instructor of the World, then I want to be an apostle. Krishnamurti: There are no more apostles, Dr. Gonzalez. It is of critical urgency that human beings change radically. They have to detach themselves from the content of mankind's consciousness, they have to live without touching the stream of growing vulgarity and violence. Egocentric activity has to end, the desire for profit, power and prestige. One needs to learn to live psychologically alone, that is to be content without depending on anybody or anything. Ruben: That they detach themselves from the content of mankind's consciousness?... then, how does one live? Krishnamurti: You don't become comatose, you don't enter into a drug or alcohol induced trance, you don't live in a state of hypnosis, nor asleep even while awake. You live in complete attention. Are you aware that observation is attention? Ruben: Fundamental action. Krishnamurti: Observation is action. To observe totally doesn't mean to be negligent nor socially indifferent. If you observe totally, each one of your actions changes in nature. You free yourself from the choking grip of traditional memory and you also start to think sanely and freely. So there is total observation and new thought and action. (We spent a long time in silence) Ruben: Are you greater than Jesus? Krishnamurti: Do you want me to say "yes"? Ruben: Tell me what do you think? Krishnamurti: Mankind is not the same. In the last 2000 years there have been three wars every year in the world and there has been a consequent degradation of human beings, the son of humanity can not be the same. Ruben: You are talking of the Son of Man (with capital letters) aren't you? You are talking of the Greek "uios tou antropon" (the son of man). Aren't you? Krishnamurti: The son of humanity is today the son of a degraded mankind. Then... what do you do? Ruben: I listen to Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti: For how long? Ruben: Until I understand and radical change occurs. Krishnamurti: Be a light to yourself. Stop procrastination. Throw away the content of consciousness. There has to be pure consciousness, pure awareness, pure listening. Ruben: When I asked you whether I could speak publicly you said, "you speak". Krishnamurti: You speak. "That" is not only for you. Ruben: Can you tell me more about talking to people about all this? Krishnamurti: You talk and expect no-thing. (LONG PAUSE) (In vital silence) Krishnamurti had said "no-thing", he had not said "nothing". Krishnamurti: It's time for lunch Dr. Gonzalez. March 25, 1975 (Hotel Huntington, San Francisco, California) Krishnamurti: Good morning Dr. Gonzalez. Ruben: Good morning. Krishnamurti: I guess you have some questions, right? Ruben: You told me two days ago that you'll never die in an aircraft, what is it that makes you feel protected? Krishnamurti: That. Ruben: O.K. Please, tell me about That (Or the Other). Krishnamurti: You can see That in action, but you can't talk about it. (LONG PAUSE) (In complete silence) Ruben: You already know that some of my friends disappeared in Argentina. Sometimes I feel deep sorrow for Argentina and for the rest of the world. How come so much horror? Krishnamurti: You can be free of all conditioning and then you'll be free of sorrow. When you are not an Argentinian anymore you'll be able to do more for mankind and even for Argentina. I was born in India. I had an English passport. When India declared its independence from England I asked for an Indian passport. Since then I have great problems to get visas when I travel around, but I'm not English nor Hindu. I'm a human being. Ruben: You are a very special human being. You are easy to love. Krishnamurti: I admit I'm different, but the transformation that has occurred in me can occur in any other human being. And nobody needs Krishnmurti or Dr. Ruben for that radical transformation, which is so necessary, to occur. Ruben: Maybe not, but a serious dialogue helps. Krishnamurti: With no guru. Dialogue without gurus. Ruben: Could we say that you are being my guru without us wanting it and that I'm being your guru without it being my purpose? Krishnamurti: Then there is a serious dialogue. You and I are seeing together the same thing at the same time. The most repugnant thing is to prostrate yourself to another human being and adore him or her. (LONG PAUSE) (In vibrant silence) Ruben: Someone told me you sometimes even faint out of sheer physical pain... What is that? Krishnamurti: I call it "the process" but I don't understand it nor want to. I leave all the explanations about "the process", healing, and clairvoyance to doctors like yourself (laughing). Ruben: I'd like you to tell me how to heal. I mean healing in its pristine and complete sense. Krishnamurti: Again Dr. speaking (Long pause) I prepared tea for you the other day. You found it bitter and left it. I had to ask you to finish it. You still have predilections, Dr. Gonzalez. Ruben: So, to heal (with capital letters) you need to have no predilections. Krishnamurti: No, no. It's necessary not to have predilections. Period. If you're content for something you're not content. (LONG PAUSE) Ruben: Would you summarize the teaching in only one sentence? Krishnamurti: Attempt without effort to live with death in futureless silence. Ruben: It sounds absurd. Krishnamurti: Some time ago, in 1972, I spent a full morning with That without leaving my bed. I was completely quiet, before doing my Hatha yoga (only physical yoga, just to keep a flexible body)... that was like a flame in the center of immensity. And the center of immensity was my brain. Do you understand? Ruben: Yes. (LONG PAUSE) Krishnamurti: Then, what are you waiting for? Ruben: What? Are you by any chance saying that That is ready for me right now? Krishnamurti: That's right. But you are too sad. What a waste! Then, what are you waiting for? Ruben: I want to understand that sentence: "Die in silence without future". I think it would be better to say "attempt without effort to live in peace in futureless silence". Krishnamurti: No. Death is the end of all you are afraid to loose: your attachments, your memory, your disappeared friends, your prestige as a children's surgeon. All that is the content of your consciousness. Can you get rid of it right now, now that you're young and healthy and not wait for 50 years for it to crumble by itself? It's easy for me to die. Ruben: Saint Paul said: "I die every day". Krishnamurti: Paul said "I die every day" and Dr. Gonzalez repeats what Paul says and nothing at all happens. Ruben: You're more of a surgeon than I am. Krishnamurti: Dr. Gonzalez, your brain has been as it is for the last million years. For how long will it be like that? Will you go to bed tonight with that brain of yours as it always has been? Habit, sorrow, anger, etc.? Ruben: I wouldn't be here if I wanted to go to bed with this brain as it is. Nevertheless, I know I shouldn't accept what you say just blindly. I have to experience it. Would you be able to facilitate the experience of that which may transform my brain and my life? Krishnamurti: If I was so stupid as to facilitate it, then all I say would become a theory or a technique, like so many others. You have to do it yourself, Dr. Gonzalez. Climb to the summit and look, or do you prefer to go to bed and beg me to describe it to you? Would you be satisfied with my description? Then you have no substance, then you are a second- hand human being. (PAUSE) Ruben: How does mediocrity end? Krishnamurti: As you get rid of the contents of human consciousness, will you get rid of all word? Ruben: Without saying "Krishnamurti is talking to me". Krishnamurti: Or he who listens is a "respectable Dr." You simply listen totally in pure silence. Ruben: Nevertheless, even with no words, I'll be able to talk meaningfully from deep silence. Krishnamurti: For the first time, quite sir. The word God is not God. Ruben: Will it help to stop sex with my wife? (*) Krishnamurti: Dr. Gonzalez, if you love, you love your wife, then you do what you will and there is beauty in what you do. Don't worry about sex, do it or don't. Now, let's be silent for a while because Mr. and Mrs. Lillifelt will be here soon. We will have to talk, because you know well Dr. Gonzalez, that I will not live forever. Perhaps ten years more and the chap will be gone. COMMENTS (*) The relationship with my wife ended three years later when she left our house, which I immediately got rid of. Ever since then I live in the desert without securing my future. The meeting followed the dialogue but I have already written about it. Krishnmurti died almost exactly ten years later. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:42:47 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 3/5 Part three: David Walker wrote: Dear Friends, This is the third piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling his dialogues with Krishnamurti. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brockwood Park June 1978 In April 1976 I met Krishnamurti and Mrs. Zimbalist at an international meeting he attended with psychiatrists at the Carnegie Institute of Endowment in New York. It had been organized by Dr. David Shainberg from New York. The meetings were tape recorded, so I will not discuss them. When the last meeting ended I approached Krishnamurti as usual to shake his hand and make a few comments. This time Krishnamurti looked tired and only said a few words: "Did anybody listen?" Krishnamurti used to make intentional pauses between words. "Please see Dr. Bohm in England and then see me in Brockwood, as soon as you can". I just said goodbye. Krishnamurti was sweating and there was no joy on his face. It wasn't until June 18th 1978 that I landed at Heathrow Airport in London (from Miami). I took a bus to Woking and from there a train to Petersfield. Mrs. Zimbalist was waiting for me at the station in Petersfield. I was dressed as informally as I could, and I asked her why we were driving a Mercedes. She said it was a good car. I had the belief then that the teacher of the world should dress informally and even poorly and perhaps live uncomfortably. Looking backwards I try to understand my lack of sensitivity and I can only partially justify it, telling myself I was so eager to see the truth in Krishnamurti that I was doing at the same time everything possible to find out what was he hiding: either some esoteric teaching for the chosen few or some ugly business for some corporation. But there was nothing of one nor of the other. Krishnamurti was talking about the only thing that matters, and he was order, beauty, love and truth. Only it was too hard to believe! I shared meals with Krishnamurti for ten days in a row. I sat with him, Dr. Bohm and his wife, Mrs. Zimbalist, Mrs. Simmons and Mr. Narayan who was at that time Principal of the Rishi Valley School in India. On June 22nd and 23rd three cameras were set up to film the dialogues between Krishnamurti, Bohm, Narayan and Dr. Rahula, a Buddhist from Sri Lanka. Krishnamurti invited me to participate, and I, as usual, refused. During lunch, the following day I asked Krishnamurti what did he think of the Buddhist specialist. Krishnamurti said, "You know there are many library mouses who can only repeat what they read, they are unable to live what they read. During the whole conversation there was not one moment of insight. He did nothing but compare the new (what Krishnamurti says) with the old (Buddhism). He compares everything with Buddha, he doesn't want to be a Buddha." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ During one of those meals Narayan asked Krishnamurti to talk about reincarnation. Krishnamurti only said this: "What is it that continues?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ After lunch I approached Krishnamurti who was walking alone with his dog Whisper under the trees. I told Krishnamurti I had been watching my sexual desire very closely the night before. I had been given a room where I slept by myself. I asked, "Is there anything one can do not to repress the desire and not to free it in conduct?" Krishnamurti said, "Be a light to yourself." Talking to whisper (the dog) he said: "Let's go Che-che". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By that time one of the male students (all between 14 and 22 years old) had gone to the room of one of the girls. There was an ongoing administrative process to expel them both from the school. Krishnamurti decided he would discuss sex with the students but he didn't want the visiting parents who were staying in Brockwood that summer to participate. I started to leave but Krishnamurti called me: "You have to be present", he said. The students were angry during that meeting. One of them said to Krishnamurti, "You speak of freedom so much, why do you restrict sexual freedom in the school?" Krishnamurti answered: "This school is like a home for you. Why wouldn't you take care of the school as you would take care of your home? You know we are under the laws of England and that we have to respect the laws; otherwise, they are going to close the school." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I met Krishnamurti soon after a series of long conversations with David Bohm regarding his concept of Holokinesis or holomovement. Krishnamurti: Did you talk to Bohm? Ruben: Yes. The place was small but the conversation was big. Dr. Bohm was patient enough to listen to all I had to say. He said my approach to perception could be very helpful for those who have the mind to listen. I'm trying to polish the language as much as I can. Krishnamurti: That's good, but words have to be simple. Sometimes I have felt like creating a new language. But one has to speak to those who listen, and one has to use the words we have. Ruben: Dr. Bohm agreed with me that whoever listens in unitary perception (holokinetic listening if you want) will have a changed molecular structure of the brain, of each neuron. Krishnamurti: Quite, quite. Ruben: That brain will make contact in a conscious way with what you call "the ground". Krishnamurti: Perhaps, yes. There was an art show later. I discussed "Discipline" in Brockwood Park with Mathew Lazarus. When I met Krishnamurti, I told him: Ruben: I was talking about "discipline" with one of the students. He said that western students define discipline in Brockwood as "strict". Eastern students consider it "loose". Krishnamurti: Discipline is the skill to learn. You either have it or you don't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ruben: Krishnaji, as I told you three years ago I don't see much meaning in working as a physician in a society that is getting more and more corrupt by the minute. You told me in 1975 that I shouldn't quit psychiatry (as I quit pediatric surgery) and that I should change psychiatry. What I see is that it is difficult for people to understand the basics of the new psychology and the new physics and even if they do understand nothing seems to happen... society continues to be based upon war... Krishnamurti: Why do you separate God and work? Why can't you be joyful, peaceful, honest and creative in your work? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:43:59 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 4/5 Part four: David Walker wrote: Dear Friends, This is the fourth piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling his dialogues with Krishnamurti. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ March 30, 1980 Ojai - California There may be one day of error in this date Ruben: Last year we couldn't talk too much. Mary (Zimbalist) takes good care of you. She didn't let me see you. Simple as that (laughing). Krishnamurti: I asked her to live longer than I will, so she helps me to take care of "the horse". They claim that I take care of my body as a cavalry officer takes care of his horse. Maria is a good officer. Ruben: I guess that without her it would be difficult to be even one minute by yourself, with so many people wanting to talk to you. People love you. Krishnamurti: No, very few want to discuss anything serious. They fall in love with me and want to be close, that's all. It's not that they love. Ruben: I'm glad to know Dr. David Bohm will talk with you and that the talks will be recorded. Please tell him I'd like to see him again. Krishnamurti: Yes, we will record our talks with Dr. Bohm. I didn't know what we would do in the two days in California this time, but seems it will happen. Ruben: I hope you talk about the problem of time. It was when I had my first contact with That, at the Frankfurt Airport in 1978, that I understood what is irrelevant time. It was the last thing I understood, the difference between relevant and irrelevant time. I think if somebody understands that difference right away That has to barge in. Krishnamurti: Quite, Dr. Gonzalez. Ruben: It's a pity that that "contact" is not a voluntary thing, because I would not like to live in any other way anymore. It's like healing or group-mind. It happens without one knowing how or why: It's perhaps semi-deliberate... Krishnamurti: Don't get trapped in it when it happens. Ruben: No, but it's fascinating. Krishnamurti: It would be good to have you in our dialogue with Dr. Bohm, somebody who knows about the brain and intellectual psychology. Ruben: Excuse me, but I'm not ready to participate in that dialogue. I'm going through a family crisis, my sons are in Argentina, and it's better not to talk about that. You might remember that last year, after having a walk with them, you told me: "Don't ask them what happened". That was in April 1979. Their mother left our house abruptly in August 79. Is all this irrelevant time? Krishnamurti: Yes, but you said you have tried the Ocean water. Don't avoid exposure Dr. Gonzalez. You already have something to say. I hope you'll participate and contribute. Ruben: I'm very sorry I can't do it right now. It's not that I don't want it or that I'm afraid. I simply can't. I think I'm going through a small night of the soul, as they used to say. Krishnamurti: I hope you can. Speak and expect no-thing. Don't expect to preserve your respectable merits, untie the ocean. The Ocean will flood Dr. Gonzalez. There will be nothing left of him. (PAUSE) Ruben: I'm thinking of working only four hours a day and living in the desert or by the sea, far from big cities. I made contacts in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara (with Dr. Ben whom you know so well), Ventura, Hawaii, etc. I want to live simply and with austerity. In November 1979 I refused an offer by Dr. Karl Pribram at Stanford University in California, to work with him in brain research. Krishnamurti: You love and you do what you will. But austerity may not be simple. Ruben: I got rid of everything I had. Krishnamurti: Be careful that austerity be simple. Ruben: What do you mean? Krishnamurti: You may live in a mansion and spend the night in a grand hotel, as long as your future is not in your memory. He who dies being rich has lived in vain. Ruben: I agree. The doubts I have refer to the security of my two sons. I only don't want to have more children. I'm a pediatric surgeon and a pediatric neurologist-- psychiatrist, but I don't know what to tell my children. The world is not fit for children. Krishnamurti: Be responsible with the commitments you have taken upon yourself, but don't worry. Ruben: I think my first commitment is to share the treasure of That when one truly lives in it. I'm spending everything I can spare traveling around the world and talking from That. That has come several times. Krishnamurti: Yes, you look different. Since you come from Latin America, why not concentrate on Latin America? Tickets and hotels are more and more expensive every day and you know how difficult it is to get a visa sometimes. Nobody will pay your expenses from Latin American. Those who could pay will not listen and those who listen will not pay. Besides that, you need to take care of your health, you need exercise, Dr. Gonzalez. It's a problem to be in a hospital, all plans altered. That's what happened to me in 1977 when they operated upon my prostate. It was a chance to die and never come back, but there is a lot to do yet. You think it's generous to forget one's health, right? Ruben: (laughing) I think it's the problem of almost every physician, the idea that you have to take care of people's health and forget oneself. I was lucky to be born in a vegetarian home, that I never drank (alcohol) or used drugs or tobacco. Krishnamurti: Beware of your generosity, Dr. Gonzalez, the end of the body shouldn't be precipitated by suicide nor the generosity of forgetting one's own body. What do you do when you talk with people in Latin America? Have you ever tried to ask a question in a group for nobody to answer? See what happens. Ruben: I speak in Universities with professors and students. When riots and strikes start (which happens quite often due to the situation of oppression and plunder of which Latin America is victim) then I rent a hotel lecture-room, place an ad in a local paper (all quite expensive) and I invite the whole town, as I have done repeatedly in Caracas, Santiago, Buenos Aires, Rosario, several towns in Mexico and Lima. In Costa Rica there were no problems at the University (San Jose). Perhaps that's because Costa Rica has no Army. I speak of time and its relationship to consciousness, to perception. I speak of "Unitary Perception". Local gurus don't like me to talk because that's the end of their spiritual business. I also understand that when you told me "you talk" it's implicit I'm the only one responsible for what I say. I do not represent you nor interpret your teaching. Krishnamurti: Quite. Don't forget that in silence flowers an intuitive understanding. Do you talk of living orderly and peacefully and honestly? That's not so difficult and that's the beginning. It's important to emphasize a radical change in daily life. Partial reforms (political, economic, ideologic) are not enough. Ruben: But they are urgently needed in Latin America, otherwise a lot of blood will be spilled. Krishnamurti: yes, but without a radical psychological transformation a partial reform will only procrastinate the blood spill. (PAUSE) Ruben: If wars don't stop today, there will be war tomorrow. (PAUSE) Krishnamurti: Have you been flattered or invalidated? Ruben: More flattered than invalidated. Both may be the same. Krishnamurti: They are both rubbish, don't you see? They have done it with me, all my life. To adore or to mock is easier than listening. You know. Ruben: I see it clearly. But change seems to be difficult. Krishnamurti: Do you know that you can help those students to change? Ruben: I hope so... but... that contradicts... Krishnamurti: Give them all your compassion and all your intelligence and even the last minute of your time and energy, but learn to rest in silence. You work too much. Listen well to each one of them. In intelligence and compassion you are a little sun. You'll give light and warmth... and some will praise you, or will mock you from the shadows. Some others will sit in the sun. (LONG PAUSE) Ruben: Do you think I should speak without using my name (anonymously)? Krishnamurti: Dr. Gonzalez you have four names, don't confuse me even more with your anonymity. Do not avoid exposure. Don't be afraid of loosing anything. There's nothing to loose. You told me you're responsible for what you say, anonymous or not! Ruben: What do I do with healing? Krishnamurti: Healing the body is of secondary importance. Do what you will. But don't do it because someone wants it. Ruben: What do you do with the aura? Krishnamurti: Nothing. We have discussed this matter the first time we met. If you get trapped in something marvelous you'll not allow for the next marvelous thing to happen. Leave the aura alone. Leave kundalini alone. "That" cleanses everything. You don't need to worry. Ruben: Sometimes you see something unbearable in someone you love. What do you do? Krishnamurti: Do you have predilections? Or will you look for some reason for it? It seems unbearable to love someone who will not get interested in That. There is a brother I would like to get interested... he resists... but that's that. Ruben: The saddest thing for me is to see what human beings could be but are not. I would even stop watching the news, but it's hard. (LONG PAUSE) Krishnamurti: I watch the news sometimes, or else someone else summarizes them for me. The spiritual state of mankind is deplorable. Don't you see how urgently necessary your own transformation is, Dr. Gonzalez? Every child should travel around the world. Then they could cry for all mankind and they would stop thinking as Argentineans, Hindis, Russians, American, Japanese, etc. Ruben: Nothing seems to be enough to understand something so simple. Krishnamurti: Your own total psychological transformation is enough. It's enough to get rid of mankind's consciousness. It's necessary to do so and that is the pure silence and the pure peace of the brain. But that can't be left for tomorrow, if one is serious. Ruben: Silence without name. Krishnamurti: It's like a house which doesn't have a place for silence... it will be a house with a lot of activity, plenty of noise, but there That will not enter. There has to be a room in each house where the only thing you can do there is to be silent and nothing else. That room will be the flame of the house. Ruben: Then each home would be like a temple... Krishnamurti: Each home would be a home without sorrow, that is a good home. (LONG PAUSE) Krishnamurti: Well Dr. Gonzalez, it's time to go now. I'm sorry. Ruben: Krishnaji, before we go... I hope you give me the names of those you think have understood you best, even when not absolutely well. I'd like to talk with all of them. Krishnamurti: They are few, so find them and meet them. Untie the ocean together. Ruben: Thank you for all, my friend. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 13:50:01 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Conversations with Krishnamurti 5/5 Part five, the last: David Walker wrote: Dear Friends, This is the fifth and last piece by Dr. Ruben Feldman-Gonzalez recalling his dialogues with Krishnamurti. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Five Years in Ojai I saw Krishnamurti many times in the last five years of his life. I can't remember the dates well except that my meetings with him happened during the two or three weeks the public talks in Ojai were being held. It was clear for me that I was not going to depend on Krishnamurti for anything, but I still was intent in discovering "the complete silence of the mind". Whenever we met in Ojai it was with David Bohm and a small group of friends, or occasionally by chance close to Arya Vihar (his residence) or at the Oak Grove School. One day I told him the eternal That, the immense joyful energy... had "touched" me. I also told him that very soon it left me. The meaning of That touching me was immense, it made me very strong during the few big adversities of my life. I asked him, "Why that doesn't come more often?" Krishnamurti said, "What do you do with your energy?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I think it was in 1981 that a birthday party was organized for him (in May) by the people working at the four Foundations. Krishnamurti arrived and stood in silence for three or four minutes. Suddenly a gentleman with a Bostonian or perhaps English accent approached Krishnamurti and said: "I understand you are a Brahmin from India". Krishnamurti said, "I only have a passport from India". He soon left the party. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ When the last talk of 1985 ended in Ojai in May I decided I wouldn't attend any more Krishnamurti talks. Krishnamurti died in February 1986 anyway. It struck me, after his death, while I was listening to the last of his talks in England, held in 1985, that he said: "I will not use the word meditation anymore". I had asked him to do that several times. One day we were at an orange grove in Arya Vihar, simply enjoying the scent of spring in silence. I said, "I worry the schools are going to become elitist and that only the wealthy will be able to send their children to them." Krishnamurti said: "We have to work with what we have and we have to talk with the words we have. I was born in a very poor home and some of my brothers died from tuberculosis or malnutrition. But look at me! I'm doing very well, huh?" I said, "you were lucky you had teachers like Leadbeater who was even clairvoyant." Krishnamurti said, "Yes, I was very lucky. Leadbeater was temporarily clairvoyant, and I was lucky that everything he said entered through my right ear and left through the left." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We were sitting with David Bohm and Krishnamurti. I told Krishnamurti: "From the conversations the three of us have had, including the one with Dr. Sheldrake, one may infer that when one human mind is consummate in intelligence and love, that mind will inexorably influence (non-verbally) in an energetic (holokinetic) way, all human minds at the same time. Now if Krishnamurti is totally transformed or consummate, how come one doesn't see it more in people around us or even in the whole world? How come the sorrow, the brutality, the vulgarity, the insensitivity of people is not reduced? Why don't we see the transformation more? At that point Krishnamurti told Dr. Bohm, "Professor Bohm, you have been a co-worker of Albert Einstein but even so one can still talk to you without a mask. (Krishnamurti smiled)... how would you answer to that question? Why don't we see the change?" Dr. Bohm meditated for a few seconds and said: "As a physicist I only know that 99% of all phenomena occurring in matter and energy are invisible." May 1983 Krishnamurti had public talks in Ojai rather late in the Spring of 83. I was with my two sons: Sebastian age nine and Demian age eight. We couldn't get a motel in Ojai. They were all full. We spent the nights at the Holiday Inn in Ventura right beside the Pacific Ocean. My sons were happy. We had the sea, and Ojai was only thirty minutes away by car. It is claimed that "Ojai" means "The Nest of God" in the local American-Indian tongue. On the morning of Saturday, May 14th, 1983 we arrived at the Oak Grove School in Ojai (Founded by Krishnamurti in 1974) at about 9:30 A.M. We parked the car and went for a slow walk under a sunny light-blue sky among the oak trees. There was a delightful breeze between the blue mountains and the ocean. There were already more than 1000 people for the lecture that would start two hours later. I met many friends from different parts of the world. We were elated by our mutual company and by the expectation of listening to Krishnamurti in person again. The blend of nature, friendship and the sacred is beauty itself. And that day we were deep into the glorious light of beauty and the rare presence of love. Krishnamurti talked for an hour or so about the deplorable spiritual state of mankind. Three thousand people listened in silence. It was only Krishnamurti's voice and the breeze among the Oak trees. Hundreds of birds were chirping. He said we have to be a light to ourselves because "there is no one to go to". Social and individual corruption grows. He said it's perfectly possible to relate without a shadow of conflict. At the end he shook hands with me and my two sons. "It's good to see you for a moment", he said. Demian said, "Krishnamurti has cold hands, Dad". I said, "Krishnamurti is eighty-eight years old, and he was talking for more than an hour under the trees in the breeze". It was during that weekend that we met at Arya Vihara in Ojai. There was a circle of chairs with at least ten people sitting with Krishnamurti. It was three or four P.M., and it was easy to lose track of time in that kind of atmosphere after a cup of tea. After Krishnamurti joined us we remained in silence. One had to absorb his presence before any action was possible. At one point he asked, "Am I a freak?" I said, "You may not be a freak but possibly the genetic pool you come from makes you definitely more able to be free from the influence of human memory (both individual and philogenetic). That has made you more able to be in total contact with reality, while we are at best only partially in contact with it." Krishnamurti said something close to the following, "We may have genetic differences but we are all able to 'touch' the ground or the totality of the mind, and that ground is the most important thing for human life". I said, "The ground being the cosmic mind or the holokinetic source of life...." Krishnamurti said, "The ground being complete silence of the mind (he emphasized the word 'complete'), then we can talk". He finished. I said, "Is there something external that comes to us (or to Krishnamurti) in certain specific circumstances? Krishnamurti said, "It may come now when two or more meet to discuss seriously, which means with no wish for money or success and letting all the masks that protect us drop off. Water will not know what water is. We can only discuss what water is not. You may explain water well but you have to swim in the sea as well". I said, "We are in California. If you had to only use the words from the Bible how would you tell me what you just said to me?" Krishnamurti said: "It's revelation. Something that happens every time I speak. But now, since that happens, I prefer to use my own words which are less loaded with distortions". I said, "Tell us more about that." Krishnamurti said, "It's too big for words". A long silence followed. I finally asked, "what will we do, the ones that have tasted a few drops of that water?" Krishnamurti said, "Those few will have to shout from the housetops before it's too late for mankind". I told him that some people were angry at him for the way he had said some things. Many seemed unable to forgive Krishnamurti for what he had said in Saanen in 1980: "God is disorder and if man is God's creation, God has to be horrible, a monstrous entity. God must be disorder since we live in disorder. If he made us like He is and we are killing each other, then He must be monstrous". Krishnamurti said: "What God are we talking about? Is it the God that man made? Those that get angry want to substitute the experience of God, the man-made God. It's not so easy. That word is disorder, not the experience. Where the word is, experience is not. Where experience is, there may or may not be the word". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 12:33:44 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The January THEOSOPHY WORLD is Out The January issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD just came out. It's contents are: "Theosophy and Politics," by Eldon Tucker "Point Loma Publications is Now on the Internet," by Michael E. Bartlett "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "The Personification of Barriers to the Path," by Annette Rivington "The End of THEOSOPHIA" "Considering the Tarot," by Gerald Schueler "Inner Certainty," by Eldon Tucker "The Brahmanical Code," by Dallas TenBroeck "Women in the Theosophical Movement," Part II, by James Santucci "The Source and Value of the 'Mysteries,'" by H. S. Olcott THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 04:41:22 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Jan 2nd 1999 Dear Martin: As far as my association with the ULT is concerned (for the past 60 years or so) there has been no deviation in the ULT, or among the many "Associates" of the ULT in applying in full the DECLARATION of POLICY of the ULT. It has NO OFFICERS or BYE-LAWS and therefore has NO LEADERS. Everyone is a student-teacher. I tend to believe that Leon allowed his rhetoric to get away from him as nowhere in my experience has anyone been "commissioned" to "root-out" form the ranks of those who have become "associates" of the ULT anyone for any reason. Each is invited to mind their own business and do the best they can with others and for others. The work of the ULT is focussed on providing the original works on Theosophy by HPB and WQJ; and, in providing a forum for their discussion and study. This is Brotherhood in action. Let's be reasonable. 1 - we are all immortals. So we cannot eliminate each other. Our common source of origin is the ONE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT. Nature offers all of us a place where we can live and work together. The ULT expressly states in each of its published programs that there are no restrictions on attendance, and all those who are interested in its work are free to attend. No fees or dues are ever charged, and no "door-keepers" stands to bar anyone from attending those meetings as advertised. 2 - No one is asked or invited to make any judgments of others or their motives. Hence there could be no "rooting-out" of anyone. We always have to live with one-another and we are only expected to do as well as we can - honestly and sincerely. There is enough to keep us all very well occupied and with little or no time left over to worry about how others are doing or not doing. 3 - each of us makes his own Karma as he goes along. None of us are so "pure" that we do not make errors of judgment, choice, etc. We are invited to apply without limits the first Object of the Theosophical Movement: Brotherhood - and in so doing, establish a focus, a nucleus, where others also work, have the same opportunity to study, learn, inquire, etc... as we have done. Thus we can see how the Karma (of a group), of all those who participate in Theosophical endeavors no matter what designation they give to themselves as individuals or as groups, is established for a joint future. 4 - In terms of the third Fundamental of the SD (Vol. I pp 14 - 19) we all labor together and are bound by our own decisions. If great Nature allows us to continue in this physical body in this incarnation, then there are possibilities for our improving our nature and working closer to the universal Goal. Nature is the impartial judge of all we think, feel and do, and no one man or group is "told-off" to act as policeman. 5 - - I recently posted an answer to questions that Mr. Daniel Caldwell asked. These relate to the Eye and the Heart Doctrines. I will insert again those portions that seem to be relevant ========================================== " Dec 30th 1998 Dallas offers: In my esteem the Mahatmas in writing as they did, desired to distinguish between the SELFISH and the UNSELFISH "Paths" and those who follow those two schools - imbued with the motives and choices relative to those separate states of mind and personal "goals." There were at that time some confusions of opinion (and it apparently still persists, mainly because we are only able to perceive the EXTERNAL APPEARANCE of things and people, and are unable to see what their inner nature and motives are) as regards Tibetan sects - so it became necessary for the Mahatmas in writing Sinnett and Hume (and others) to draw those distinctions. They speak mainly about the inner motives. Applications can be made all around the world when we consider the motives that drive religious movements (especially the congregational ones: Judaism, Islam, Christianity). In addition to this are the motives of those who participate (and who does not ?) in "capitalism," "socialism," and various other forms of business and politics, where living conditions are enforced on vast masses of people. [ It should be noted that while the several sects of Buddhism encourage the monastic life for those who wish to adopt it, either for life, or for some shorter period (or periods), it is not congregational, any more than is Hinduism. Attendance at temples is purely voluntary and no one is under compulsion to attend. ] Essentially, to me, the ethical and moral implications of Theosophical philosophy and doctrine are more important than details. The "theory" is given at length in the "metaphysics" so that the practical applications to daily life by those who desire to improve their methods of living may be adopted. It is essential to recognized that there can be no final compulsive discipline. [ That would generate the "Eye Doctrine." ] Rites and rituals which lose their meaning arise from such compulsion in time. Better is time spent to offer explanations of the metaphysics, so that those who desire may see how their applications in daily life may be used by them. Of necessity, each one selects and determines for himself what those will be. [ This selection and use is the "Heart Doctrine." Every one of us builds his own as he lives. ] The "way out of this morass" is to first apprehend what are the basic concepts of continuing life": -- 1) the immortality of man's True Essence - his Spiritual Soul-Mind; 2) that this is not only man's condition but that there is a bond between every least component of Nature, taken as a whole. 3) the progress of all beings is evolutionary, is essentially one of a growth of intelligence and consciousness rather than merely a physical one. The physical always provides a base for the emotional and the mental planes of experience and growth. All "progress" is self-chosen. 4) Nature is lawful in its entirety; and impartial, universal and immutable LAWS prevail and pervade the whole of Nature in all its departments, of which Mankind is one. The Sciences prove and use this fact all the time. We depend on this for our continued physical life. 5) All evolution starts on the subtle planes of Spiritual nature, and concurrent with those, are the development of material forms. At this, our present stage, the two have merged. Consequently we perceive in our minds and feeling natures the conflict and uncertainty of the two divergent/convergent streams of development. It becomes our duty to resolve these in our own minds - by studying Nature and OURSELVES, and our capacities and potentials. Much more could be said, and in fact is said in Theosophical literature - such as emanated from the pen of HPB. It deserves correlation and close study in order to verify its accuracy. Such study has to be done individually. There can be no vicarious advance. No one can trust any conclusions except his own. The conclusions that are offered by many who are good thinkers need to be carefully reviewed, questioned, and checked by each "student" in this vast School of Life and living. We are so accustomed in our present culture to trust "authority" that it is rare to meet with those who insist on verifying all that they adopt and use. Authorities are usually found to offer shaky views for which they claim accuracy and often universality. Time and again these have been proven faulty. Humility and honesty demand that all opinions be carefully labeled, so that the naïve and the untutored are not misled. All through the writings of HPB one can find that she distinguishes between the "DOCTRINE OF THE EYE," and the "DOCTRINE OF THE HEART." The first is intense selfishness and isolation from the rest of Nature - even though this is quite impossible - it is an impossible attitude when forced to its logical conclusions. The second is found to harmonize with nature's ways of adjusting evolution in the widest possible sweep of view. It is brotherly, compassionate, considerate, merciful, forgiving, and yet demands that we as independent minds prove this each for themselves." I believe that this also answers your question about what is taught (in general) at ULT. It is THEOSOPHY as originally expressed in the writings of HPB and WQJ. All ULT work is centered around that and focused on the transmission of this "message" with as much purity as possible to those who will be following us. Let us not forget that "reincarnation" is a fact for all of us. We are those who lived, worked, studied and built in previous civilizations. And in the future we will be reincarnating in our descendents - so why not be "reasonable" and leave for our return a basis that we can contact and use with the least possible difficulty. It is clear that we ought to be working on ourselves and our study, so that we know whether Theosophy is accurate, true, reasonable, or is not. It is quite futile for us to try to perpetuate something in which we have no real confidence. Now, these are subjects on which many will have different views either wholly or partially. It is only fair if there is disagreement that further inquiry and questions be directed for our consideration. I will be glad to answer. In my opinion no one need spend time "defending themselves or their views." We are here to discuss Theosophy and to find out what are the principles that are valid and basic from which all practical derivations can be made. If de Puruker and Mr. J. Long (also Annie Besant and Leadbeater) write for Theosophy, clearly and based on the fundamentals of the original message, then no one will have anything but praise for their efforts. If however, they are found to deviate from the original presentation, they will have to do the necessary explaining to those who inquire about any differences of them. In regard to the writings of AB and CWL a valid comparison was made by Margaret Thomas ( THEOSOPHY OR NEO-THEOSOPHY) as early as 1924. It will be well for those who desire to know about the differences in doctrine to read this book. Of recent days, Mr. G. Farthing of England former General Secretary of the TS ] has been writing on the same subject and his notes and pamphlets ought to be secured and carefully read. To sum up briefly: In the writings of HPB and WQJ readers will find out what Theosophy is. In the writings of all subsequent writers (including myself) they will secure opinions that are either close or divergent from the original impulse. Each student has to study and make up his own mind on these things. With best wishes for this new year, Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > Martin Leiderman > Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 11:23 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Questions for Rich, Jerry, Dallas et al concerning what the Mahatmas are talking about in their references about "Shammars", "Dugpas" etc. Dear Leon, You must be one of the great leaders of ULT since you can "root out" people from it as you wrote recently: > > "I have in the course of the last 20 years rooted out three such infiltrators > from the ULT lodges, one of whom had reached the state of "platform lecturer" > with a 15 year history as a "sincere" student. " > > > And also you wrote: > > "As an added note. Long after HPB and the Masters alerted us to them--before > the Dugpas came to America through England (with Crowley) and through Germany > (with Hitler)--it was the Christian "Dugpas" (or Jesuit dupes) who infiltrated > the theosophical movement through Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater and > introduced the false doctrines of "Liberal Catholicism" with a new, "reformed > theosophy" ritual magic (but not called so). . . Then, with the help of > another dupe, Alice Bailey, who channeled to DK, a Dugpa Master posing as the > teacher of M and KH--these pseudo Christian infiltrators enticed out all the > rest of the "Christ" conditioned gullible or greedy members of the original TS > by offering them a re-coming of the "world group" Messiah, as themselves, plus > a new form of ritual "magick" based on "invocations". As a support of this, > they downgraded the S.D. to the "kindergarten" preparation for the phoney DK's > pseudo magical "advanced teaching" in the "Treatise on Cosmic Fire". > > > What else do you teach at ULT. I know several people who go there (like > Dallas, and Wes) and I would like to know what other doctrines they are > exposed to. What is your opinion on G. de Purucker and James Long. I like his book Expanding Horizons which I am studying in Spanish. Are they in the same group of AB, CWL etc. Martin Leiderman in West Los Angeles, CA -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 03:09:36 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: The Supreme Court, Fudge and Karma Murray wrote: Before I prattle on regarding this current e-mail by Murray, I wanted to tell Dallas and Murray that I do plan on responding to their previous e-mails very soon. Dallas referred to me specifically and I don't want Dallas to think I am simply rude (which I can be) and ignoring him. Of course, this means I am assuming that my response has been eagerly awaited. . .hmmmm. >A revealing statement .... . Kym, are you sure you have your life under >control? When I have fudge, ALL things are under my control. >First, the karma is a *natural* reaction or consequence, just as gut-ache >is a consequence of eating too much chocolate fudge at once, no matter how >enticing. So it's not vindictive, just what happens if you use free will >that way. Well, if karma is a "natural" reaction or consequence, why were those who chose to "obey" - which is also a choice - NOT given the "penalty" of karma? This isolated passage of the SD certainly seems to imply that only SOME monads suffered karma due to choice, even though both groups made a choice. Also, Murray, you brought up the notion of "too much" fudge - ok, I can grant you that; however, in the passage, the monads merely made a choice to delay or contemplate their choice. I do not see in what way this choice can be seen as "too much." What followed the choice, via physical incarnation and the like, could have, for some, become excessive or "too much," but why the automatic assumption that in simply making the choice it becomes "too much?" I guess my root question is why Theosophy assumes that life - as we know it - was NOT SUPPOSED TO BE? I do not assume that pain, torture, and such, is meant to be, but life is so much more than that for many people. Relationships, love, sex, food, sleep, dreams, fulfilling work, green grass, the sun, the ocean, dogs, cats, creepy next door neighbors, etc., may not be possible elsewhere. I mean, WHY NOT choose the "Fall" if it also offers these neato benefits? I cannot say I know what the life a Mahatma is like, or what the life of an angel is like, or what life with a superior astral body is like - but from my human perspective, when I try to imagine it from what I have read or heard, I have to say, in all honesty, it sounds. . .well. . .just plain toilsome. There are many references telling how they are hard at work helping humanity - but what they do in-between and what they would DO if there WASN'T such a thing as 'humanity to help' remains elusive. >"Obey me out of your free will or I'll make your pay for it" you don't >like, well, that would rile me too, but I don't think it was really like that. Despite your elequent and positive attempt to redeem the passage, it still sounds like that is the case to me, but I admit I am a die-hard skeptic. I have observed this "obey or pay" suggestion, either overt or covert, presented numerous times in the SD and Theosophy in general (and in many other philosophies and religions). And I still haven't figured out just what exactly the rule IS that I am supposed to obey and how to go about doing that and still manage to ensure that I cause no harm. >I think the choice to delay incarnation was in a way choosing to deny one's >inner purpose. To enjoy the immediate (the chocolate fudge) at the expense >of the longer-term. To choose to be a fractured or discordant being. And >the consequences of this we can see in ordinary human terms around us, in >those who consciously or unconsciously have made this kind of choice. But, you know, I wonder who will really turn out to be the "wiser" - meaning, an entity that has experienced living as a "fractured or discordant being" can often provide insight, understanding, and compassion that may not be found in those who do not know such suffering. In the human arena, I find more comfort and guidance from those who have known the pain I have felt from making wrong choices. One of the reasons many people are drawn to individuals like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi and others is because these individuals worked through suffering - they were/are not distant, impersonal, perfect 'holy people on top of a mountain.' And I wonder if this means I shall be forever bound up with the "laggards" as they will be the only ones in which I will be able to feel true kinship. . .. >Further, as the quote implies, the evolution of the higher and lower >components of being got more out of step as the delay increased. With >children, having unruly or "impure" personal vehicles as a result of >environment or unwise parenthood only makes the job of the incoming >spiritual being harder. Again, not vindictive, just a consequence. I agree, but this is, to me, another example of how one's free will is usurped by another's free will. Why, if there is such a thing as free will, would it be denied to "the incoming spiritual beings?" In the SD example, "God" appears to be making the choices of some beings have more grave consequences, with this, in turn, making other choices even harder. Example: a fractured being incarnates with the resulting difficulties, he/she has children (also fractured beings), but the children are born into more difficult circumstances than the parent had. This seems unfair. The "punishment" of karma is more severe for some than others all due to the original creation of karma (which was created by "God"). Unless ALL beings are incarnated at exactly the same time under the same circumstances and thereby being free to create their own karma - it isn't fair. The passage of time should not matter in this case unless each and every entity KNEW what different delays meant - and if they all did, and this is what they chose, then "God" created some rather masochistic, or very fearful, beings. . .and this I cannot believe. >I love your writing, by the way; both you (Kym) and Dallas, in your very >different ways. Oh, now - quit egging Dallas on. :-) >PS: Isn't it intriguing how different streams of consciousness and history, >at different levels, are portrayed as making up the human being? Intriguing indeed! But it also can muck it up alot when trying to figure out what the hooty it all means. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 15:08:18 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Re: -More on "karmamudra" == "Creation" and "polarity." How does Karma work ? nJan 2nd 1999 Dear friends: I find it amazing and distressing to note how much attention is being given to the exoteric speculations about the union of the male and the female in the last moth or so of exchanges. Why not let us all consult the S D and look up what HPB has to say about the primordial separation of the "sexes" their subsequent "unions," the result of which is our Kosmos - and then, see if this, as a process, is repeated for our little Cosmos: the Solar system, and finally for our "Earth" and all the beings that evolve on it. Every time we wake up, I think we can trace how we repeat the whole process in miniature, if we look for our memory of how we arouse ourselves to waking consciousness daily. Theosophy teaches that the spiritual soul in man and woman (ATMA-BUDDHI) has no "sex." It uses at each incarnation that kind of body where its Karma allows the best resolution of causes set up earlier in previous lives. So it is, after all, not very important whether we use male or female bodies, so long as we learn from the experience. The primary idea is, I think, that we are, each of us, immortals, and we are trying to assure ourselves of this fact, and then decide how to make use of it. In my opinion: This obsession with "sex" is a degradation of the great idea of unity that allows for, first duality, and then, the "multiplicity" that is needed for the "creation" of a fresh form for a returning immortal Ego to enter and use. All the "lower kingdoms" of nature participate in this process, and they do so under "natural impulse, unconsciously. WE are responsible in general for their training, and we ought to treat them as our "children," if we assume that responsibility. Our responsibilities as parents are important. Are these not to be considered ? How is it that we have become so interested in adventure and pleasure that we cease asking these vital questions ? What are we doing to each-other, to the rest of nature around us, and to our very real physical children when we generate them ? Why should we limit our inquiries to the ideas and illustrations of Tantrik texts that degrade and physicalize (and psychically debase) the grand idea of the family and connubial life? It is unfortunate that we seem, as a race, at this bend of the cycle, to be obsessed with the psychic enjoyment of "sex." Should this not be considered from its deeper aspects ? Who among us cares for the karmic results of promiscuity ? What kind of a future are we projecting for ourselves when we have finished with our short-lived physical "enjoyments?" Do we really think that Theosophy and Nature condones our ignorance and our very selfish obsessions ? What are the responsibilities that are incumbent on married life and the raising of children? But the consideration of this would require a long article, and this is long enough. Theosophy speaks of the TWO ONES: the transcendent and the immanent (SD I 130 top). The first, the ABSOLUTE can never be described by the personal lower mind of incarnated man, but it may be considered as a logical necessity - and THAT which is the Pervasive yet never to be limited LIVING BACKGROUND of all being [ the Ain-Soph of the Kabalist, the Parabrahmam of the Hindu, etc...]. Then when the never-dormant Karmic cycles demand that the Universe rise out of its Pralayic sleep (LONG AS THEY ARE, THEY ARE SUCCESSIVE) we are given an idea of the Creative ONE, on the most tenuous planes of the spiritual. Its ex-istence demands at that remotest point a refined SUBSTANCE - the first vestige of MATTER [Mulaprakriti -- Maha-Buddhi - Akasa and other names ] If that (central yet universal) Creative Point (in the Circle of limitations), is called the Logos, the Creator, the Prime Number, etc..., and given as designation the active "male" potency; then the MATTER which is associated with it [ Suddha-Sattwa Theosophical Glossary, p. 311) - primordial CONSCIOUSNESS or MAHAT ] is treated as the opposite "pole," and said to be the "female" potency (Vach-Speech, Isis, Lakshmi, etc....) Acting together as "husband and wife," these produce the Active Creator which becomes active on the next plane down of materiality - that of the Mind-Manas in its universal aspect named MAHAT. This Active Creator (the Second, or Creative Logos) working with its "mother" interacts with her to produce the 7 Sons - or "Creators," Rishis, Yogis, Manus, Sephiroth, Prajapatis, etc...) Thus we have the "Three in One." It is represented by described triangle embracing 3 planes in the SD I 200 diagram. Below it are the 7 that are in evolution. Ours in particular is "Globe D" the 4th or the "balance," the mediator between beginning and ending. Here is where we are and evolution is actively proceeding as we rise into the planes of the mind. Thus the "husband" (male potency) produces the wife (female potency), interacts with her and produces a son, and in turn at the lower level this 'son" interacts with its 'mother" to produce the 7 basic "creators of Kosmos." And this progression is repeated for every smaller Cosmos in the Universal manifestation, right down to the physical molecule and the "life-atoms" (Monads, skandhas, etc.) Thus if we look closely at the diagram of manifestation in SD I 200 we see the Spiritual Three, based on the transcended first Three. The next 4 planes provide the area where the 7 lower "creators," "races of mankind" "principles," etc... work and interact as each "life-atom (Monad) individualizes and becomes more and more a Mind-being. This is where we are. However, in my opinion, if we do not study this pattern and do not familiarize ourselves with the implications in our daily lives of the 7 principles of nature and of man, of Karma, and of the ultimate Goal or perfectibility or WISDOM and COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE of our Universe, we delay our own progress and understanding of this great program. And what is more, we delay that of others. We can become very learned about the ephemera of scholasticism and yet remain ignorant of the general purpose of our lives and of the rest of the Universe, and its progress. A sense of the importance of Brotherhood can cure this. I hope that these ideas may be of help in resolving this morass of opinions. Let's get a basis from which we can proceed and cease hurling quotations from various sources, Tibetan, Buddhistic, Chinese, Indian, etc... which make no sense unless the underlying patterns are known and employed. There is no way that metaphysics can be studied solely with the aid of materialistic interpretations that are not correlated with the metaphysical source from which they are derived. The esoteric keys that Theosophy offers, can do this, and these superficial and rather useless positions based on modern interpretations of ancient texts can be resolved if we make use of the information that Theosophy offers. That is basic to all (see SD I 272-3 Item "1") which is in all our hands, but which many of us seem to avoid getting familiar with so as to make actual applications of that information. The main problem (as I see it) is that we are selective in our considerations and we tend to reject or avoid such propositions as do not reflect our immediate interests, whether they be true or not. So we remain ignorant of the "other side" of the situation. I would recommend using the INDEX to the SD and review what is said in the SD on "creation," "sex," "male and female," etc... Best wishes, Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > Caldwell/Graye > Sent: Saturday, January 02, 1999 8:29 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com; blafoun@azstarnet.com > Subject: Theos-World Re: A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra"----More on "karmamudra": READER BEWARE---THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBILY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME SUBJECT: Re: A Blavatsky Student Gives View on "Karmamudra" More on "karmamudra": READER BEWARE!!! THIS IS SOMEWHAT DISTASTEFUL AND POSSIBLY EVEN "X-RATED" TO SOME READERS. PLEASE DO NOT READ IF EASILY OFFENDED. This is my reply to my correspondent who wrote the posting titled "A Blavatsky Student Gives View on 'Karmamudra'." Daniel +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++ ------------, This is in answer to your email. You ask about David Reigle's view on karmamudra. From numerous talks on the telephone, it is my understanding that he believes that there is a symbolic dimension to, for example, Tsong Kha Pa's writings on karmamudra. In other words, he doesn't take it literally. Part of his view is based, I believe, on much of what Madame Blavatsky writes throughout her writings on symbolism, etc. I sent David Reigle a gift copy of TSONGKHAPA'S SIX YOGAS OF NAROPA translated by Glenn Mullin. After reading this translation, especially on karmamudra (pp. 164-165), where Tongkhapa writes about "sexual play", and also writes: ". . . those wishing to engage physically in the sexual yoga should be qualified" and even writes about entering "into sexual union with this visualized consort [a mandala dakini]" and arousing "the four blisses", ---I take it that David considers this all as somehow symbolic. Also I believe he said that the original Tibetan does not use the word "sexual". This is an addition by Mullin probably based on what he has learned from his Gelugpa teachers. This seems to be David's "view" on the material. I'm hoping David will write something in his own words on this topic. Also related to this was David's comments that the term "wine" is used in the Kalachakra texts, but should we take this literally or should it be taken more symbolically as the term wine is used, for example, in the Sufi tradition? He also pointed out that human "reincarnation" into the animal kingdom is accepted literally by the Gelugpas, but would or should Theosophists or Blavatsky students ALSO accept this as literal truth? I have found in Blavatsky's writings a number of passages which I think are relevant (to some degree) to the literal or symbolic nature of "karmamudra". Here are two passages in THE COLLECTED WRITINGS: (1) Volume X, pp. 155-156 on Gichtel. I quote but one excerpt from two pages of HPB's text which should be read in its complete form: "From Marcus, the Gnostic, down to the last mystic student of the Kabala and Occultism, that which they called their 'Bride' was 'Occult Truth,' personified as a NAKED MAIDEN, otherwise called Sophia or Wisdom." Caps added. What is the term in the Buddhist Tantras for "Wisdom"? (2) Volume XII, pp. 558-559 from HPB's E.S. Instruction No. II. "Those who know the history of Simon have the two versions before them, that of White and of Black Magic, at their option, in the much talked of union of Simon with Helena, whom he called his Epinoia (Thought)." Was Helena "a beautiful and ACTUAL woman"? Caps added. Did Simon engage in "sexual union" with Helena? HPB answers these questions as follows: "Indeed, the chief rites of this kind of magic are based on such digusting LITERAL interpretation of noble myths. . . . Those who understood it CORRECTLY knew what was meant by 'Helena'. It was the marriage of Nous (Atma-Buddhi) with Manas. . . .Helena was the Sakti of the inner man, the female potency." Caps added. And HPB also writes in the SD (I, 381): "Such is the cosmic and ideal significance of this great symbol [the lotus] with the Eastern peoples. But, applied to practical and exoteric worship -- which had also its esoteric symbology -- the lotus became in time the carrier and container of a more terrestrial idea. No dogmatic religion has ever escaped the sexual element in it; and to this day it soils the moral beauty of the root idea. . . . It is the profane of the past ages who have degraded the pure ideal of cosmic creation into an emblem of mere human reproduction and sexual functions: it is the esoteric teachings, and the initiates of the Future, whose mission it is, and will be, to redeem and ennoble once more the primitive conception so sadly profaned by its crude and gross application to exoteric dogmas and personations by theological and ecclesiastical religionists. The silent worship of abstract or noumenal Nature, the only divine manifestation, is the one ennobling religion of Humanity." Keeping in mind what HPB writes above about the "lotus", compare that with what Agehananda Bharati, an authority on Tantra, writes in the context of "Buddhist tantric practice": "In Vajrayana practice today the preliminary exercises take up a much larger portion than sexual congress; in fact, the latter element is now often eliminated. . . . Where there is actual copulation, retention of semen is axiomatic: 'having brought down the *vajra* into the lotus, let him not eject the knowledge mind.' Such use of code or 'intentional language' is a feature shared by Hindu and Buddhist tantrism. It serves a key terminology for the initiates and as a means to screen the teachings from outsiders. 'Knowledge-mind' (bodhicitta), for example, is a code term for semen." So "lotus" and "vajra" are code terms for what?? And compare the above with what Daniel Cozort in HIGHEST YOGA TANTRA (based on Gelugpa tradition) writes: "This sexual union, real or imagined, causes the substance drop to appear at the tip of the sexual organ, but the drop is not emitted, being willfully held in place." So drop ("bindu" or "thig le") is a code term for ------? Having read and reread Cozort's book, I am amazed at its resemblance to various Hindu Hatha Yogic texts. Also compare the material in Cozort's book with what HPB writes in her three Esoteric Section Instructions. It seems to me that there is a world of difference in the two views. I'm certainly open to new data and facts and so will keep an open mind, but for the most part I prefer the symbolic approach. This seems to me much more in keeping with Blavatsky's and the Mahatmas' views. Also more in keeping with my understanding of mysticism and from my own mystical experiences. Sorry the above was written in haste and may be somewhat disjointed. Will be glad to fill in any blanks. Also would appreciate more input from you so as to CONTRAST your view with David Reigle's "take". Daniel blafoun@azstarnet.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 02:43:28 -0500 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: The ULT W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: > As far as my association with the ULT is concerned (for the past > 60 years or so) there has been no deviation in the ULT, or among > the many "Associates" of the ULT in applying in full the > DECLARATION of POLICY of the ULT. It has NO OFFICERS or BYE-LAWS > and therefore has NO LEADERS. Who owns the land used for the Lodges? Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:06:59 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Some Quotations from Theosophical sources Jan 4th 1999- January 4th being the Theosophical New Year NEW YEAR HPB in writing in LUCIFER on the New Year said: "Let no one imagine that it is a mere fancy, the attaching of importance to the birth of the year. The astral life of the earth is young and strong between Christmas and Easter. Those who form their wishes now, will have added strength to fulfill them consistently." ...Let no one mistake the importance and potency of numbers--as symbols. Everything in the Universe was framed according to the eternal proportions and combinations of numbers. "God geometrizes," and numbers and numerals are the fundamental basis of all systems of mysticism, philosophy, and religion. The respective festivals of the year and their dates were all fixed according to the Sun--the "father of all calendars" and of the Zodiac, or the sun-god and the twelve great, but still minor gods..." HPB -- THE YEAR IS DEAD ULT - HPB Articles I p. 504 "The 3rd day of the month was sacred to Pallas Athene, the goddess of Wisdom; and January the 4th is the day of Mercury (Hermes, Buddha), who is credited with adding brains to the heads of those who are civil to him...December the 25th was the day of the birth of the sun for those who inhabited the Northern hemisphere..." ( - idem, p. 505 ) "According to our theosophical tenets, every man or woman is endowed, more or less, with a magnetic potentiality, which when helped by a sincere, and especially by an intense and indomitable will--is the most effective of magic levers placed by Nature in human hands--for woe as for weal. Let us then, theosophists, use that will to send a sincere greeting and a wish of good luck for the new Year to every living creature under the sun...Let us try and feel especially kind and forgiving to our foes and persecutors, honest or dishonest..." HPB "1890" LUCIFER, Jan 1890, Vol. 5., p. 357. ULT HPB Articles II, p. 495 "If, for generations we have "shut out the world from the Knowledge of our Knowledge," it is on account of its absolute unfitness; and if, notwithstanding proofs given, it still refuses yielding to evidence, then will we at the End of this cycle retire into solitude and our kingdom of silence once more...We have offered to exhume the primeval strata of man's being, his basic nature, and lay bare the wonderful complications or his inner Self...and demonstrate it scientifically...It is our mission to plunge and bring the pearls of Truth to the surface...For countless generations hath the adept builded a fane of imperishable rocks, a giant's Tower of Infinite Thought, wherein the Titan dwelt, and will yet, if need be, dwell alone, emerging from it but at the end of every cycle, to invite the elect of mankind to co-operate with him and help in his turn enlighten superstitious man. And we will go on in that periodical work of ours; we will not allow ourselves to be baffled in our philanthropic attempts until that day when the foundations of a new continent of thought are so firmly built that no amount of opposition and ignorant malice guided by the Brethren of the Shadow will be found to prevail." Mahatma Letters, p. 50-1 Transition Cycle "We are the bottom of a cycle and evidently in a transitory state, Plato divides the intellectual progress of the universe during every cycle into fertile and barren periods...We are in a barren period the eighteenth century during which the malignant fever of skepticism broke out so irrepressibly, has entailed unbelief as an hereditary disease upon the nineteenth. The divine intellect is veiled in man; his animal brain alone philosophizes." ISIS I 247 [WQJ I 211, LET 71-2, OCEAN 4, 50 55, 126, IS II 366-9] "...I told you long ago to expect many and great disturbances of all kinds as one cycle was closing and the other beginning its fateful activities. You already see in the seismological phenomena of late occurrence some of the proof; you will see a great many more and shortly..." M L 396 "The ultimate origin or beginning of man is not to be discovered, although we may know when and from where the men of this globe came from. Man never was not. If not on this globe, then on some other, he ever was, and will ever be in existence somewhere in the Cosmos. Ever perfecting and reaching up to the image of the Heavenly Man, he is always becoming." OCEAN p. 127 "The object of [the] amalgamation and precipitation is to give to every race the benefit of the progress and power of the whole derived from prior progress in other planets and systems...Nature never does her work in a hasty or undue fashion, but, by the sure method of mixture, precipitation, and separation, brings about the greatest perfection...Hence man did not spring from a single pair. Neither did he come from any tribe or family of monkey...7 races of men appeared simultaneously on the earth..." OCEAN p. 122-3 "...man came to this globe from another planet, though of course then a being of very great power before being completely enmeshed in matter, so the lower kingdoms came likewise in germ and type from other planets, and carry on their evolution step by step upward by the aid of man, who is, in all periods of manifestation, at the front of the wave of life...This is the point where the intelligent aid and interference from a mind or mass of minds is absolutely necessary. Such aid and interference was and is the fact, for nature unaided cannot do the work right...It is Man who does this. Not the man of the day, weak and ignorant as he is, but great souls, high and holy men of immense power, knowledge and wisdom...just as every man would now know he could become...Various names have been given to these beings now removed from our plane. They are the Dhyanis, the Creators, the Guides, the Great Spirits, and so on by many titles..." OCEAN p. 130-1 "These cycles, according to the Chaldean philosophy, do not embrace all mankind at one and the same time...the metaphysical views of Plato were based upon the strictest mathematical principles...(p. 7) geometry, of all sciences, the only one which proceeds from universals to particulars was precisely the method employed by Plato in his philosophy..." "...The sacred numbers of the universe in their esoteric combination solve the great problem (the cosmological theory of numerals which Pythagoras learned from the Egyptian hierophants, is alone able to reconcile the two units, matter and spirit...) and explain the theory of radiation and the cycle of the emanations. The lower orders before they develop into higher ones must emanate from the higher spiritual ones, and when arrived at the turning-point, be reabsorbed again into the infinite." ISIS I 6 - 7 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 04:46:05 EST From: Patoekeyo@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Quotations from Theosophical sources In a message dated 1/3/99 4:07:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, dalval@nwc.net writes: << NEW YEAR HPB in writing in LUCIFER on the New Year said: "Let no one imagine that it is a mere fancy, the attaching of importance to the birth of the year. The astral life of the earth is young and strong between Christmas and Easter. Those who form their wishes now, will have added strength to fulfill them consistently." ...Let no one mistake the importance and potency of numbers--as symbols. Everything in the Universe From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 03:59:30 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: law and reincarnation Drpsionic@aol.com writes >Why? Are you planning to sue someone after they died or inherit your own >property? Not a good idea - I would end up owing myself a fortune. Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:10:27 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Paranoid Theosophists? Jerry Schueler writes >Of course we can always fall back on the rationalization that Theosophy >is not psychology and keep on avoiding issues that we consider too >unpleasant or too disgusting to talk about. But I have to wonder if >Theosophy and psychology are really all that far apart (certainly >Theosophy goes much farther, but a healthy ego, like a healthy body, is >something that even a Theosophist can use). I am not sure that Theosophy goes that much farther than Jungian psychology, especially when so much of the "farther" part is completely incapable of verification, unlike Jungian psychology, which is (not for the faint-hearted though!). > >Now I am removing my Psychology Hat and replacing my Theosophy Hat. We >are all divine sparks and exactly identical consciousness-centers, and I >love all of you. I wonder about the "exactly identical" bit - in kind, perhaps, but in essential being, perhaps not. I love all of you, too. Alan :0) --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 04:03:17 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Animals rule - or should. . . kymsmith@micron.net writes >If I ever claim that animals do not have emotions, please. . .just shoot me! I could never shoot a friend. Anyhow, we don't have (or need) guns in the UK [smirks self-righteously]. I'll just get you carried off to the funny-farm. Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 01:08:52 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: law and reincarnation In a message dated 99-01-06 01:01:01 EST, you write: << Not a good idea - I would end up owing myself a fortune. Alan >> You isn't the only one brother! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 23:31:14 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Sex is not a dirty word Jerry wrote: >Now, if those who oppose = >these two ideas and choose not to enter into any discussion of them are = >under 35 or 40 years, then that is OK and I respect their personal = >choice. Well, I am under 40 years old and I believe that we should be able to talk about sex without freaking out and running naked down the road. I will "respect" a person under 40 for thinking this way due only to the fact that they are a part of me and ALL - but I still would think that society or some other influencing force has caused them some serious harm and they should seek counseling and/or therapy. In this day of AIDS, teen pregnancy, scarce availability of birth control/abortion clinics, overpopulation, lack of child care, the rebirth of the desire to "shame" those who engage in anything other than marital sex, etc., any lack of knowledge regarding sex - be it esoteric or exoteric, mental or physical - should not be tolerated. These days, ignorance can kill you or get you psychologically stoned by a mob. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:00:21 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Kym's memo of Jan 4th == an attempt at answering Jan 7th 1999 Dear Kym: Enjoyed going over your comments on my earlier post - but as it would be too long to add these I'll start a new series of observations. I think that the philosophy of Theosophy starts at the other pole from our normal point of philosophical and psychological view points - I mean those developed in the past 200 300 years in the "West." By this I mean that the "Eastern" starting point has been the UNIVERSE in its largest and most tenuous aspect: "Spirit." This is held to be the "opposite" of "Matter." To explain this is not easy. But one thing that our scientists today will concede is that what we call matter is actually only the "phenomena" of the forces and energies that whirling atoms and molecules determine. We never ever completely get "down to matter" - although we use physical things all the time, and depend on their retaining their qualities and usage. Thus, they admit that there is some inner force that is intelligent and is able to draw all the many parts needed for a form to exist together. This factor of an honest retention of quality by physical things is held as part of the evidence to the lawfulness of the Universe. Hence the Second proposition (Space, Universality, Spirit being the First) - the Second proposition is that LAW prevails everywhere, and all that is "alive" depends on that factor being honest and constant. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy are all to my mind examples of this honest universality of law. Without the laws of Life that involve Spirit and Matter at all points, the Third proposition of universal Evolution could not operate. That is the increasing sensitivity of Life as it manifests in forms of increasing complexity. It is also taken as a given that each "life-atom" is an immortal Force - an Energy which has no termination. The whole of Nature - the whole Universe - is made up of these living centers of Life. Mankind is an example of these - a group that for this particular time has reached the point where it can take its own evolution in its own hands. It is the struggle in which every human is involved - of becoming universally self-conscious. Now, how is that as a "challenge?" But let also approach the same from a slightly different view-point. What is it that evolves ? Here we might start with a "suppose." Suppose that "Spirit" mixing with "Matter" at all points induces Intelligence in the forms thus assembled under Law. This would imply that each "Form" has a reigning Intelligence that lives within, behind, and energizes it. [ I have just been looking at a Scientific News-release where they have succeeded in attaching in the Brain of a person who (after a massive stroke) was totally disabled except for evidence that the brain still functioned - he was a vet and was on life-support - anyway, the brain cells were induced to grow into the and around the gold electrodes implanted in certain brain centers, and when this was complete, the vet, after training, was able to cause a computer cursor to spell out words and to indicate how he felt. Observing this the scientists said that this demonstrated that the MIND was able to use the BRAIN, and it showed how the two were linked. The will of the Mind to influence the brain centers registered as electrical impulses that caused the cursor to move to definite areas which the vet could see on the screen and which his doctors were able to understand. ] Where does this "Intelligence" begin to work its way up the "ladder of Evolution ?" We could see it like the old Hermetists did: "A "Spark" becomes a stone; a stone, becomes a plant; a plant, an animal; an animal, a man; a man, an angel; an angel, a God. When has the "One spark" ever been diminished by change ?" The question of "good" and "bad" is a difficult one to consider since it invokes a common idea of ethics and morality - and just as the "laws of the land" do, it presumes that there is a certain norm in cultural and communal behavior which everyone is supposed to observe voluntarily. Interestingly enough if one travels over the world, no matter what country one goes to the same general ethical ideas prevail even though the religion and culture may be quite different from ours. The unanimity of conduct would suggest that there is a great common base for living all over the world. In Theosophy this is not viewed as something that is separate from the general rule of LAW in the evolutionary process. After all the human brain is, agreeably, only a tool and it does what it is told to do by the Mind that employs it. It, in turn directs the body, and serves as a go-between between the Spirit in Man and the body he tenants. But the mind in man and woman is essentially and inherently free-willed. You speak of the excitement and the "spice of life." I think we all experience this in our own ways. Challenge need not be daring do, unless we feel it is somehow important to challenge those norms and live at times "over the edge." In doing so, hopefully we endanger no one but ourselves ! Is it success to live, or do, without being "caught ?" Does this not imply we have a deep-seated knowledge and respect for laws that secure the harmony, balance and moderation that makes for community and family life ? But, perhaps this sounds very insipid. And one might ask "What in us is it that enjoys ?" Who is the "enjoyer?" How long does enjoyment last ? What are the goals of "enjoyment ?" If we want "variety" in what areas should we seek ? Are we building a fund of solid and valuable experience or, are we merely wasting time ? As to "truth" - I think we are always aware of it. If we say or do something that is less than truth, and I think we are all involved on this score, because we don't yet fully visualize the results or ramifications of our choices as they may impact others or ourselves, later on. But just because we are not able, or not interested in mentally previewing the possible effects we start, does not mean that they will not come about. The example of dropping a stone into a pond is often used to show that deeds always have consequences. Suppose that by prayer, praise or petition one could have the effects of our thoughts and acts "forgiven." Can we not ask "Why me ?" "What about others who may try to secure action against me ?" Who will be "God's" favorite ? Is it fair for God to play favorites ?" And so on. And what about the compensation that may be due to victims or their families ? Who will settle that ? Then comes compassion and forgiveness. These are very important. I would say that hey are always due in our attitude to others, in trying to understand what they feel and think. But this is the way that an intelligent and sensitive person ought to react to others, in an effort to maintain a harmony of common relations. I would say that if we are made the victims, then these two qualities become essential for us to apply and to repress any desire for revenge or retaliation. But I also think this is very difficult to agree to. If Law, as a universal method of relations exists in the abstract, then its manifestation, it would seem to me, would be inherent in the living situation of all beings. The laws of life seem to become more complex as we observe how the "inorganic" materials of "stones" and "minerals" pass into the "organic" composition of "plants." Plants show a different level of sensitiveness - the various trophisms. Passing further to the animal kingdom, we have a whole new range of sensitivity and independence that can be viewed there. And when finally the human stage is reached the inclusion of free-will, and the Mind gives the "form" a chance to comprehend the universalities, absolutes, and laws of the environment of the his Earth, and Universe. The mind reaches out in all ways, to seek data, to observe relationships and to verify laws that operate everywhere. I do not think I would be unfair to suggest that beyond the man stage, where thought and control are developed there are areas of service to mankind as a whole, of assistance to those who "know still less that we do." I agree with you that defining "reality," "love" "reward and punishment" is difficult. Since they exist as concepts (with many variations of meaning attributed to them) how are we going to define them, or find a common meeting room ? They are very important as they related to every aspect of our lives and families. To me, the word "belief" either implies a well thought out and logical conclusion or, may imply a blind acceptance of some "authoritative" assertion - something that I either have to prove the truth of, or something which I accept without proving, "on faith." Personally I want to KNOW. If I am told that there is a God with the powers of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience, then I want to understand. If IT is omnipresent, then it is present in me. At no time can I escape the purview of God - hence in ITS omniscience, IT knows all about me all the time. This leaves the third aspect of omnipotence to be explained. I would say that the fact that anything is alive or in existence demonstrates that God (or Nature) has a use for it, and permits it to "live." Man, hence, has no right to judge or decide what lives or dies, what is hurt or loved, and what will be assisted in evolving, or hat will be retarded. These things are all handled under God's Laws. [ That is, if what I write is fair and true so far. ] But if God is everywhere then Nature is a synonym for God. Reality is all our existences, taken as a whole. Love is the condition of compassion as regards all living things. Our "freedom of will" is the wonderful opportunity of learning all these things, including the secret workings of God/Nature and participating actively and voluntarily in this great process. But, is this not a description of our general situation - of the "human situation," and of the condition of all living things as they relate to others around them ? You observe that we cannot possibly remember everything. And this is true if we consider our normal ability. But there have been exceptions, as for instance those people who have "photographic memories" - and forget nothing they see or hear. Then experiments in hypnosis show that there is in all subjects there is a subliminal, subjective register of impressions which can, under special circumstances, be invoked and made visible and audible to the operator. It is said in Theosophy that all Nature, the very walls around us, serve as recording agents of our actions words and thoughts. I also agree with you that we, as humans will not be "souls" operating as "computers." That does not make sense with the evidence we have so far. "Pushy" Theosophy does not really insist on anything. It only describes our world, personal and universal situation. It exists as a record of the investigations of many, many students, some living today, as we are, and others who lived in past times, but all have contributed to a survey of the workings of Nature in all her many departments. If it is only description, then we ought to investigate to find out if that description is fair and accurate. I would not say that Theosophy insists on "reward and punishment." Rather I think it describes the way in which nature works with us, trying to get us to become self-educated. We grasp many things and some we are not yet able to understand. Some bog down at the challenge, and others feel they have to "find out." It is probable that those who are challenged transform the depth and width of their knowledge through that effort. Cast your mind back to your own school experience. Broadly, there are three kinds of students in any classroom : those who WANT TO KNOW and consequently study all they can reach. Those who coast along doing a normal minimum, nothing extra, etc...; and finally, those who really don't care and feel "pushed" by the system, their families, the need for "passing exams and getting out of School" and there are dozens of variants. And none of these are cast in stone, as from time to time we enter or pass out of those divisions in regard to some aspects of our lives. What I think is important is that we all have the same wonderful potential. We are a form of aggregated "matter" animated by a "Spirit." We feel intensely about many things and we investigate our feelings with our Minds. We are constantly reviewing our thoughts and attitudes and our goals, but we do not all keep a careful record of our findings and store it for future use in our "Minds." If we could do that and make a daily review, we probably could be able to do a lot better (each one of us) than we are doing. So, to me the fact that Karma (a name for Law) exists and operates is not one to instill "fear." It just says that "we gets what we pays for." It also takes care of those who are made unwilling victims. And it is only justice that the perpetrator of a wrong gets to see the effect of his actions some time. Why not consider that God is inside of us, and that we can seek ITS help and guidance at times of difficulty - not a miracle, but a friendly help - such as the "Voice of Conscience" or the "Intuition" can give ? Thus the Son (or Daughter) of Man is able to invoke the assistance of the Father of All. And everyone is able to do that regardless of race, religion, sex or color. Now I wonder if all this is just nonsense or if it will make some sense to you ? With best wishes, Dallas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 23:59:49 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Does grief have dominion over death? Dear Dallas, You wrote: >Why not consider that God is inside of us, and that we can seek >ITS help and guidance at times of difficulty - not a miracle, but >a friendly help - such as the "Voice of Conscience" or the >"Intuition" can give ? I understand, I think, what you are saying - it kind of reminds me of "Pascal's Wager" (where it is better to believe in God rather than not because if God does exist and one has lived according to God's Laws, all will be well; and even if God turns out not to exist, it won't matter anyway and you would have, for the benefit of humanity, lived a good and compassionate life). It makes sense. I'm still wiggly about the philosophy of Karma - still too many holes in it for me, but I suppose that shall consist throughout my current lifetime. Thank you for your kind and gentle responses to my questions. Having someone take the time to listen to you - whether agreement is reached or not - is rare and always welcome. I have one more question (for you and all on this list): I have just lost a most precious loved one due to sudden death. I have read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually hinder their journey - that the grief of those 'left behind' can serve as a kind of tie to the earthly realm for the deceased one. In one way, this makes sense, but in another way, it seems unfair (that word again!) that one who has passed on can be at the 'mercy' of those who grieve and rage against the death. Does the grief and pain of those left behind affect the one who has passed on? If so, in what way? I am interested in any thoughts or comments on this particular theory. It seems so hard not to grieve, and, not to mention how guilty a loved one could end up feeling if they knew they were "holding back" the deceased loved one! It seems we must grieve - some of us harder than others. Maybe we need to be taught "how" to grieve rightly. . .but it is so, so, so difficult. By the way, I know that people on this list are compassionate enough to offer me words of condolence, but it is not necessary - besides, I'm one of those who gets weird at mushy stuff. . .got it? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:35:59 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Paranoid Theosophists? Hi all, Theosophy and psychology are so close together in my mind, that I cannot see how an issue can be relevant to psychology, without being relevant to theosophy. Still, sex is a difficult issue, precisely because it is so emotional and personal. It is far easier to talk about more impersonal issue's. Perhaps that is why people get into such strange sidepaths as black magic and such. Black magic is only black magic if what one does and why one does it is concerned with power. At least that is how I understand it. In my personal opinion healthy sex is not about power. Maybe I am just to innocent... Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:31:40 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 30, 1998 Dear Kym, you wrote: > I have to disagree here. There are some people, including myself, who find the philosophy of Humanism attractive - Humanism generally states that there are no afterlife rewards or punishments, that what we have now is all we have to work with. I do lean toward the belief in something beyond this earthly plane and in such notions as reincarnation - but it is not that leaning that keeps me wanting to help more than harm (or I don't think it does, but who knows what one REALLY believes). Humanists find purpose and meaning in simply valuing their existence and life itself - Humanists believe that the "reward" of life is making the lives of themselves and others a good life - especially since this may be the ONLY one we may ever know. Why live it cruelly, with struggle and pain? Compassion, love, and forgiveness REWARD us in THIS LIFE - and that belief, in itself, makes the life of destruction unwanted. Humanists want peace NOW because NOW is what we are living - everything beyond that remains elusive and unsure. It is not God nor afterlife rewards/punishments that should matter. . .because...what if they DO NOT exist? > Humanism seems so cold to me, at least what I know of it, which isn't much. I think that the whole foundation falls out under humanism once a higher something is recognised. For me, it feels like there are things/states/energys higher than myself and my life would be pretty empty without them. I know that emotionalism this is not what one should use to decide truth or false, but still.. Truth, goodness etc. do reward itself in this life, that is part of what makes me believe in karma. Sometimes the reward does not come directly, because some people cannot be kind in return. But indirectly it always works, in my experience. Kindness helps for inner growth and inner strength and from it grows forgiveness, which makes life a lot easier in itself. > As a woman, I deeply dislike the Islamist philsophy - What I know of Sufi-philosophy (Islam-mysticism) makes me doubt that the way women are often treated in Islamic countrys has anything to do with Islamic-philosophy as Mohammed meant it. Did you know that the veils were originally meant as a protection for the women so they would not be mistaken for men, and beaten up for that reason? That is what I've heard. > Theosophy is "pushy" in that it insists upon the "rewards" and "punishment" > method. Theosophy is "pushy" in insisting that reason and logic are > superior to gushing over a bouquet of flowers. Thesophy is "pushy" in that > it insists on such things as "laggards." Theosophy academically postulates > a division between superior and inferior beings - the "enlightened" vs. the > "masses." This is, to me, quite "pushy." Is it pushy to recognize differences between people? I would consider that more an observation of a fact. True, Theosophy suggests quite strongly that the differences we observe among *normal* people is still small in comparison to the difference between us and the Mahatma's. But there are differences in intelligence and there are people who base their action on stupid thoughts and sentiments and there are people who are better at seeing how to act and react. Most of us are also very good at making mistakes, but the kinds of mistakes we make differ considerably. And then the kind of thing we consider a mistake also varies considerably. To some it is perfectly normal to feel, think and talk negatively about a whole group of people. To others that feels imoral, but they may still be unable to stop it. To some people it is still imoral, but they are able NOT to feel/think that way. I feel that that is the kind of distinction theosophy makes. I hope I have explained myself clearly. > Karma is punitive in demanding that all beings must pay for mistakes done > out of ignorance, rather than maliciousness. There is a difference between > the two actions, but Karma, in its impersonal style, pays no mind. It is > not right nor fair and serves to instill fear. Karma, in my understanding, does make the distinction you talk about. Mistakes made out of ignorance are far less *punished* than those made out of maliciousness. That is at least the conclusion I've come to. > >Theosophy endeavors to present concepts regarding the unity of > >all life - so that a harmony rather than a complete discord is > >perceived. > > Well, so does Humanism - but most people find it offensive. "God" seems a > necessary component, even for Theosophy, in order to get most people to do > what it is "God" appears to want them to do. But, I blab again, if one > needs a God or a reward in order to do good, then they may not really WANT > to do good - ulterior motives, not good itself, is the controller. It is of course better if we do things for the good itself. That is also a theosophical thought, and Blavatsky stresses it enormously in *The Voice of the Silence*. But isn't it better to act decently on ulterior motives than not to act decently at all? I mean, interior motives are great, but what if those motives aren't so good? Is that reason to just run amock and misuse one another and kill one another? I know that that is a bit extreme, but it is exactly that that is happening all over the world. I think you ask all the right questions, a it is a joy to read your e-mails. answers are so boring, I hope I haven't bored you. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 11:19:33 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Trojan Horse Hi, Here is something interesting. mkr =================================================== Trojan horse gathers user data, e-mails it to China January 8, 1999 Web posted at: 11:37 a.m. EDT (1137 GMT) by Kathleen Ohlson (IDG) -- A malicious computer program called picture.exe has been wreaking havoc among PC users for at least a week, capturing personal information from their hard drives and sending it to an electronic-mail address in China, according to a software security firm. Users began to notice the program, known as a Trojan horse, last Friday, when they started receiving a flood of spam that continued over the weekend, said Vincent Gullotto, manager of Network Associates Inc.'s antivirus emergency response team. By Monday, the company's call center was deluged with queries about the problem, Gullotto said. The spam has hit users in many countries and "is [doing] a pretty good job of getting around," Gullotto said. picture.exe arrives as an e-mail attachment to a spam message and once opened, drops a file called manager.exe onto a user's PC, Gullotto said. manager.exe then unleashes note.exe, which hooks onto a Windows subdirectory, looks for information on different drives and encrypts it, he said. The next time the PC runs, note.exe creates a list of URLs and manage.exe runs, attempting to send the information to the Chinese e-mail address. Gullotto called it "an elaborate attempt to get information." Santa Clara, Calif.-based Network Associates will post two detection programs today on its Web site to help users find out if picture.exe is on their PCs. In the meantime, if users receive that file, Gullotto recommends that they delete it. If picture.exe has run, he suggested using an antivirus program to remedy the problem. While one analyst was surprised at the elaborate tactics of the Trojan horse, he wasn't shocked that something like this had been created. "This kind of stuff is easy to put together with PC-cracking tools from the Internet," said Jim Hurley, an analyst at Aberdeen Group Inc. in Boston. The best way to stop the attacks "requires a bit of investment" in staffing and training and using network scanning and sniffing tools to ferret out such problems, Hurley said. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:47:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Identity of Spiritual Monads This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BE3B02.03147BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>Now I am removing my Psychology Hat and replacing my Theosophy Hat. We = >>are all divine sparks and exactly identical consciousness-centers, and = I=20 >>love all of you. > >I wonder about the "exactly identical" bit - in kind, perhaps, but in >essential being, perhaps not. > >I love all of you, too. > >Alan :0) You seem to be the only one perceptive enough to pick up on this. No, I mean it literally. Every divine Monad is exactly like every other, no differences being observable at all.=20 Jerry S. ------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BE3B02.03147BC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>Now I am removing my Psychology Hat and replacing my = Theosophy Hat.=20 We
>>are all divine sparks and exactly identical=20 consciousness-centers, and I
>>love all of = you.
>
>I=20 wonder about the "exactly identical" bit - in kind, perhaps, = but=20 in
>essential being, perhaps not.
>
>I love all of = you,=20 too.
>
>Alan :0)
 
You seem to be the only one perceptive enough to pick up
on this.  No, I mean it literally. Every divine Monad is = exactly
like every other, no differences being observable at all.
 
Jerry S.
------=_NextPart_000_0075_01BE3B02.03147BC0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:47:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Why Mime? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BE3B02.B14F7320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, if you are reading this, why do all of my messages on Theos-l = include a mime version after? I have been sending messages to Theos-l = since its inception and this problem has never occurred before. I use MS = explorer and Outlook Express 4 and mime copies don't show up on any = other lists. Jerry S. ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BE3B02.B14F7320 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John, if you are reading this, why = do all of my=20 messages on Theos-l include a mime version after? I have been sending = messages=20 to Theos-l since its inception and this problem has never occurred = before. I use=20 MS explorer and Outlook Express 4 and mime copies don't show up on any = other=20 lists.
 
Jerry S.
------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BE3B02.B14F7320-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:20:03 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Identity of Spiritual Monads Jerry Schueler writes >You seem to be the only one perceptive enough to pick up >on this. No, I mean it literally. Every divine Monad is exactly >like every other, no differences being observable at all. Thank you kindly sir! How do you test, or propose to test this? Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:23:00 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Why Mime? Jerry Schueler writes >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >------=_NextPart_000_0083_01BE3B02.B14F7320 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >John, if you are reading this, why do all of my messages on Theos-l = >include a mime version after? I have been sending messages to Theos-l = >since its inception and this problem has never occurred before. I use MS = >explorer and Outlook Express 4 and mime copies don't show up on any = >other lists. > >Jerry S. I don't know what John's reply will be, but I have seen this problem in other e-mail (i.e., not vnet) but only (so far) from people using Outlook Express, which I don't. My e-mail preferred program is Turnpike (www.turnpike.com) Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:14:32 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Does grief have dominion over death? kymsmith@micron.net writes >I have just lost a most precious loved one due to sudden death. I have >read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually hinder their >journey - that the grief of those 'left behind' can serve as a kind of tie >to the earthly realm for the deceased one. In one way, this makes sense, >but in another way, it seems unfair (that word again!) that one who has >passed on can be at the 'mercy' of those who grieve and rage against the >death. Does the grief and pain of those left behind affect the one who has >passed on? If so, in what way? I am interested in any thoughts or >comments on this particular theory. My own experience suggests not. Most recently dead people I have met or observed seem to be engaged in 1) an experience of joy and release and/or 2) the beginning of a process of induction/education into the "upper school" so to speak. With children it seems to be only 2) which supports the idea that they may be being prepared for reincarnation in order to complete an unfinished life - but this last part is only speculation. Nothing mushy. Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:26:08 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 08, 1999 == Kym's posting and question -- death and grieving Jan 9th 1999 Dear Kym: As to the presence of "God." Theosophically the "principle" "GOD" IS THE HIGHEST QUALITY ONE CAN IMAGINE. (not shouting - just emphasis) How can "IT" (THE HIGHEST) be a "person?" With this view Theosophy states that God is a Force, a Power of Life, a universal and all-pervasive support for all living things. You may ask me : "Then what has Theosophy to say about the grief we all feel when one who is near and dear leaves for regions so far unknown to us - the body dies. What happens to the "Soul?" Is such a parting completely final ? Without going into details, Theosophy states that every "Soul" is immortal, and while many bodies are used as it progresses ever onward, and many relatives and friends are distressed by the great separation, the fact is that "death" is only a longer aspect of what we call sleep. We do not fear going to sleep and we fully expect to awaken the next morning. We do fear the "sleep" named "death," because we have not yet developed the consciousness that bridges the gap of death and sees in our personal memory (to day) our so many past lives, and anticipates our so many future lives - in the company of the relatives and friends (and enemies also) that we have in this life, or in earlier ones. So we are forced to consider the philosophy relating to death and the record of those who have consciously been in and out of those states and remembered them. If we have been brought up in a religion that pictures humans as the playthings of a whimsical "God," and each life as a single unattached episode, out of which, if we "behave" we may secure an "eternal existence in 'Heaven,'" it may be at first, very difficult to perceive the change in thought which a philosophy such as Theosophy offers. If, let us say, one is brought up in Hinduism, and uses the BHAGAVAD GITA as a scriptural guide, then the idea of reincarnation and self-guidance, the return to relatives and friends would be one that we had grown up with. The idea of Karma as a continuity of relationships would be natural. At one time when Christianity was fresh, the link to Buddhism was clear, as Jesus the divine prophet and reformer of the Jews (I am come but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel) had learned from Buddhist monks who had settled on the shores of the Jordan and the Dead Sea many years before, and He had actually visited India as well as Egypt before returning to Judea to attempt a reform his people. Buddhism (500 BC) is a reform of Hinduism, and emphasizes the ethics that the Bhagavad Gita taught (3000 BC). Now what has the philosophy of Theosophy to offer ? In Theosophy every human is viewed as an immortal mind (or Soul). Thus in Theosophy we say: "Man is a soul." Instead of saying "Man has a soul, and can lose it through persistent "wrong-doing." It (the mind-soul that each of us is, essentially) uses many bodies, and constantly reestablishes relations with its loved ones from life to life under the law of Karma. Death is a long sleep. For the relatives who "wait around for the new awakening" the delay is fearsome - hence the grieving. The loss of contact is very shocking No amount of philosophy relieves any one of us of the shock of sudden separation. But on consideration, we can see how a philosophy of Life and of living, such as Theosophy envisages and explains, helps us change grief into hope and aspiration as we all can look forward to the time when we reincarnate eventually all together again. I have written of the Theosophical 7-fold scheme of nature and of man. Also of the view that we are "eternal Pilgrims" and we wend our way through many lives with our companions seeking to ever expand our range of knowledge and experience. In the 7-fold scheme that Theosophy advances for consideration as constituting Nature and Man, everything starts with the God-principle (or SPIRIT). And this is followed in a natural way by the "memory-storage" aspect of "God-Spirit, or, "WISDOM." Thus you have God and Wisdom at the beginning or "at the top of the starting list." Each being, each human has their own individual "ray" of this ONE Spirit at its core at the center of its "Real Self." And this is why the free-will and free-thought of every individual is ineradicable. Neither of these can be eliminated or damned or done-away-with logically and philosophically. OK so far ? Next follows the observation "principle" or MIND - the power to see, to perceive, to think. And this is also named "Soul." But to use the word properly needs the soul-qualities to be enumerated. The fact that there is in us a "Perceiver," at once implies that there are objects to perceive and the concept of the "material principles" becomes a necessity. In this we have to keep in mind that every one of the "principles" is a basis for seeing, understanding, experiencing and living. Every "being," whether atom, molecule, stone, plant, animal, man, angel, "god," has each their own "environment" which includes Spirit, Wisdom, Mind, and "material form." The next idea that emerges is the one that considers every "form" to be energized by a special sentient principle which we could name "feeling" - or sentience, the power to perceive "self," and "other selves." Feelings work with the "mind," but are different, as their range is of a different level. They express essentially: giving and taking, attraction and repulsion, love and hate - and all the range of feeling and emotion in between. Feeling by itself is the pure instinct of the "animal consciousness." In mankind it is closely associated with the Mind. In fact it makes the Mind-principle dual: The "higher-Mind: is that which is attracted to Wisdom and spirit; the "Lower-Mind" is that which is closely allied with our feelings and desires. It is that aspect of Mind which is active in us here and how as we are all "awake." [ In sleep and dreams, other aspects of the mind take over. That is a story in itself. ] As it (the feeling, desire principles) is associated with humans, it is only through the Mind-principle that it enlarges its range of vision. But, by its experience (before coming into contact with humans) it was limited to the survival and preservation and perpetuation of itself and its species as the instinct of the free, untamed animal. When mind is added, the panorama of the "desires and passions" increases enormously. And this is where we all are at present. The difference between mind and feeling is that "feeling" alone cannot reason. Reason (a Mind-faculty) can, however, see and visualize the future of any course that the feelings (and passions, and desires) design. It may therefore serve as a brake to the exuberance of such desires - because it sees danger and harm that might ultimately arise if the feelings are allowed to run without check - in an exaggerated and unregulated manner. Are we not always in such situations ? Is there not always a dialog going on between the feelings and desires and the Mind ? When evolution starts, three great aspects of living commence working again together (Nothing is created from nothing. When the Universe (as a Big Bang - of what - how - from where) starts, Spirit as Life, begins working with MIND (perception and feeling) and with MATTER (forms). It is thus natural that the "form-side" of evolution proceeds in harmony with Mind and with Wisdom-Spirit. Harmony is always dynamic and it is continued balance, and all three taken together represent the varied aspects of our living. [ see SD I 181 ] The "form side" of evolution starts with the individualized "Rays" of the One spirit which animate the "life-atoms" - a universal phenomenon - as there are "life-atoms" everywhere and no "void" anywhere. One could characterize this as "chaos" because in the beginning it appears unorganized. Then, under the impulse of the great LAW of Living ( named Karma ) the "life-atoms" are drawn together by the Great Mind-beings who have graduated earlier from the School of Life. It is their duty, as "fashioners," "molders" to cause the many structures of Space to aggregate - so that eventually mind-being might reside there and progress (as we do here). And so we have asteroids, comets, planets, suns, and galaxies - all "forms" aggregated out of countless "life-atoms-MONADS." They (these great Mind-beings) have the power and the Will to assist NATURE (God) to form the magnetic and electrical frame-work on which all "life-atoms" (named MONADS) work and live together. This is called the "astral" or starry form. The Great Life-currents as a breath of pulsing, cyclic force runs through this vast Universe and touches in its many ways each of the forms that have come together to form the worlds and suns. Then we have the development on each globe of the forms in which intelligence has experience. Instinct and feeling are developed in the plant and more individually in the animal kingdoms. Finally we have mankind as a separate but united aspect of the INTELLIGENT whole, each is a free willed Being. Each is striving to understand and live harmoniously with the WHOLE - not as slave or fixture, but as a willing assistant. Thus we find ourselves each life entering a new "day" in the great "School of Life." And this is why we need not truly grieve when our near and dear ones depart - for only a while. They live and will return, along with us in the future. We need to understand and be patient. As to assistance and relationship with those who have gone on ahead. Theosophy teaches that each disembodied MIND goes into an intensely closed and meditative state (named Devachan) where the whole of the past life is reviewed so as to cull out of it those ideas, notions and experiences that are the best qualities that can be built into its continuing character. This is done every time we pass from one life to a fresh one. To think kindly and with love and affection of those who have passed on is helpful to them and to us, but we cannot interfere or break into their own private work. If we could we would shatter their ability to proceed, and nature sets this barrier out of compassion for them, and as a help to us this philosophy is made available. There are those who claim to be able to "speak to the dead." Such as channelers etc. All that they are able to do is to contact this image from which the real Mind-soul has left - to enter its meditative retreat which cannot be pried open or invaded. Now this is only a brief survey of the questions and reasons that your comments evoke. If you happen to have a copy of HPB's KEY TO THEOSOPHY, and an INDEX, look up "After Death States," Kamaloca, Devachan, Rebirth, Reincarnation if you want to get the full picture. In Mr. Judge's THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY you will find similar explanations. Both can be trusted. But, the reading and review of the logic of Theosophy is something everyone has to do for themselves. Its veracity has to be challenged and then proved. Best wishes, Dallas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 23:59:49 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Does grief have dominion over death? X-Message-Number: 1 Dear Dallas, You wrote: >Why not consider that God is inside of us, and that we can seek >ITS help and guidance at times of difficulty - not a miracle, but >a friendly help - such as the "Voice of Conscience" or the >"Intuition" can give ? I understand, I think, what you are saying - it kind of reminds me of "Pascal's Wager" (where it is better to believe in God rather than not because if God does exist and one has lived according to God's Laws, all will be well; and even if God turns out not to exist, it won't matter anyway and you would have, for the benefit of humanity, lived a good and compassionate life). It makes sense. I'm still wiggly about the philosophy of Karma - still too many holes in it for me, but I suppose that shall consist throughout my current lifetime. Thank you for your kind and gentle responses to my questions. Having someone take the time to listen to you - whether agreement is reached or not - is rare and always welcome. I have one more question (for you and all on this list): I have just lost a most precious loved one due to sudden death. I have read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually hinder their journey - that the grief of those 'left behind' can serve as a kind of tie to the earthly realm for the deceased one. In one way, this makes sense, but in another way, it seems unfair (that word again!) that one who has passed on can be at the 'mercy' of those who grieve and rage against the death. Does the grief and pain of those left behind affect the one who has passed on? If so, in what way? I am interested in any thoughts or comments on this particular theory. It seems so hard not to grieve, and, not to mention how guilty a loved one could end up feeling if they knew they were "holding back" the deceased loved one! It seems we must grieve - some of us harder than others. Maybe we need to be taught "how" to grieve rightly. . .but it is so, so, so difficult. By the way, I know that people on this list are compassionate enough to offer me words of condolence, but it is not necessary - besides, I'm one of those who gets weird at mushy stuff. . .got it? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 06:26:32 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 08, 1999 == Katinka Jan 9th 1999 Dear Katinka: For me the idea of philosophy and psychology are to be seen together. But I believe on examination it will be found that theosophy adds some dimensions that modern psychology does not cover. Modern psychology is, as I see it more concerned with the here and now of the personal self. What in theosophy would be called the personality or the Lower Manas involved in Kama. The dimension that Theosophy shows is that there is the Higher Mind which is Manas and Buddhi - or the Wise-mind. In this regard it speaks of Karmic effects. It asks for instance on the matter of sex: If the act is performed for procreation, does it not simultaneously imply the acceptance of responsibility for progeny, wife, husband and family life to the fullest extent ? Then comes the question: should "sex" be performed for any other reason - like recreation? Does this lessen the karmic responsibility because we have "birth-control" pills or other apparatus and procedures to prevent the natural operation of karmic law ? This takes psychology on to an ethical plane. What is it right to do and when is it wrong ? As I understand it, the difference between white and black magic is the direction of our motives in acting, feeling and thinking. I hope this may be helpful Dallas ============================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 11:35:59 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Paranoid Theosophists? Hi all, Theosophy and psychology are so close together in my mind, that I cannot see how an issue can be relevant to psychology, without being relevant to theosophy. Still, sex is a difficult issue, precisely because it is so emotional and personal. It is far easier to talk about more impersonal issue's. Perhaps that is why people get into such strange sidepaths as black magic and such. Black magic is only black magic if what one does and why one does it is concerned with power. At least that is how I understand it. In my personal opinion healthy sex is not about power. Maybe I am just to innocent... Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 15:24:26 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: FW: Theos-World Shangri-la found == National Geographic Report in CHICAGO TRIBUNE Jan 8th 1999 Jan 9th 1999 Dear Friends: Is a "Shangri-La now discovered ? We owe this report to our friend Martin Leiderman. It comes originally from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and is reported in the Jan 8th issue of CHICAGO TRIBUNE. While this report needs verification and details, I thought you might be interested in knowing of it. Apparently we can access the information directly from www.chicagotribune.com. Also perhaps direct from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. www.nationalgeographic.com The Tsangpo is the river that becomes the Brahmaputra and flows East through the Himalayas and then bending South cuts through Assam in Eastern India and Bangaladesh; and then joins the Ganges to empty through a common delta into the Bay of Bengal. It reminded me of a portion of A HINDU CHELA'S DIARY written by Damodar K. Mavlankar to Judge, and which was then printed by him in the 1st Vol. of the PATH in 1886. THEOSOPHY MAGAZINE reprinted in its 3RD Vol. p. 357-8 are relevant. It was also published in THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT, Bombay, Vol. 10, p. 100. It is well worth re-reading. If more is heard of this, please let me know. Best wishes Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > Martin Leiderman > Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 11:07 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Subject: Theos-World Shangri-la found Chicago Tribune reported yesterday: =========================================== TIBET DISCOVERY A REAL-LIFE SHANGRI-LA By Michael Kilian Washington Bureau January 8, 1999 WASHINGTON- Explorers have finally found Shangri-La. It may not be quite the storied, verdant, utopian Himalayan paradise of James Hilton's 1933 novel "Lost Horizon" and subsequent movies of the same name. But it is verdant, it is a kind of paradise, and it is hidden deep within Tibet's Himalayan Mountains in a monstrously steep gorge within a gorge. There is no record of any human visiting or even seeing the area before. Tucked beneath a mountain spur at a sharp bend of the Tsangpo River, where the cliffsides are only 75 yards apart and cast perpetual shadows, the place failed to show up even on satellite surveillance photographs of the area. "If there is a Shangri-La, this is it," said Rebecca Martin, director of the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Board, which sponsored the trek. "This is a pretty startling discovery-especially in a time when many people are saying, 'What's left to discover?' " Tentatively named the Hidden Falls of the Tsangpo by the explorers and located in a forbidding region called Pemako that Tibetans consider highly sacred, the elusive site was reached by American explorers Ian Baker, Ken Storm Jr. and Brian Harvey late last year, though the society did not make its confirmation of their success official until Thursday. In addition to a spectacular 100-foot-high waterfall-long rumored but until now undocumented-they found a subtropical garden, between 23,000-foot and 26,000-foot mountains, at the bottom of a 4,000-foot-high cliff. According to Martin, it's the world's deepest mountain gorge. "It's a place teeming with life," said Storm in a telephone interview from his office in the Minneapolis suburb of Burnsville. "It's a terribly wild river, with many small waterfalls, heavy rapids and a tremendous current surging through. Yet there are all kinds of flora-subtropical pine, rhododendrons, craggy fir and hemlock and spruce on the hillsides-it's lush. Just a tremendous wild garden landscape." The animals there include a rare, horned creature called the takin, sacred to Tibetan Buddhists. For the whole article go to: www.chicagotribune.com select: search and type: shangri la Martin Leiderman From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:01:18 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Death Grieving This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE3BE6.BD2FDCE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, those who die can usually feel emotions and even pick up on some = thoughts of those left behind, but only for some days. Do not worry about grief. = Trying to repress your grief is downright unhealthy. Just be yourself. If you = really loved a deceased person, then that love will touch them just as surely as the = grief does, and they will understand. The esoteric teaching is that grief for the = deceased is usually not necessary or even helpful to the deceased. But grieving is = necessary to many who are left behind and to repress this is not healthy. It is = not the dead who need sympathy, but the living who are left behind. Jerry S. >I have just lost a most precious loved one due to sudden death. I have read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually hinder their journey - that the grief of those 'left behind' can serve as a kind of = tie to the earthly realm for the deceased one. In one way, this makes = sense, but in another way, it seems unfair (that word again!) that one who has passed on can be at the 'mercy' of those who grieve and rage against the death. Does the grief and pain of those left behind affect the one who = has passed on? If so, in what way? I am interested in any thoughts or comments on this particular theory. > >It seems so hard not to grieve, and, not to mention how guilty a loved = one could end up feeling if they knew they were "holding back" the deceased loved one! > ------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE3BE6.BD2FDCE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes,  those who die can usually = feel=20 emotions and even pick up on some thoughts
of those left = behind, but=20 only for some days.  Do not worry about grief.  Trying = to
repress your grief is downright unhealthy.  = Just be=20 yourself.  If you really loved
a deceased person, then that love will touch them = just as=20 surely as the grief does,
and they will understand. The esoteric teaching is = that grief=20 for the deceased is
usually not necessary or even helpful to the = deceased. =20 But grieving is necessary
to many who are left behind and to repress this is = not=20 healthy. It is not the dead
who need sympathy, but the living who are left=20 behind.
 
Jerry S.
 
>I have just lost a most precious loved one due to sudden = death.  I=20 have
read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually = hinder=20 their
journey - that the grief of those 'left behind' can serve as a = kind of=20 tie
to the earthly realm for the deceased one.  In one way, this = makes=20 sense,
but in another way, it seems unfair (that word again!) that = one who=20 has
passed on can be at the 'mercy' of those who grieve and rage = against=20 the
death.  Does the grief and pain of those left behind affect = the one=20 who has
passed on?  If so, in what way?  I am interested in = any=20 thoughts or
comments on this particular theory. >

>It = seems so=20 hard not to grieve, and, not to mention how guilty a loved one
could = end up=20 feeling if they knew they were "holding back" the = deceased
loved=20 one!  >
------=_NextPart_000_002F_01BE3BE6.BD2FDCE0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 16:36:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Identical Monads This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BE3BEC.720FA0A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>Jerry Schueler writes >>You seem to be the only one perceptive enough to pick up >>on this. No, I mean it literally. Every divine Monad is exactly >>like every other, no differences being observable at all. > >Thank you kindly sir! How do you test, or propose to test this? >Alan I have already done so, by comparing to Buddhist philosophy, Theosophical writings, mystical writings around the world and through the ages, and yes, by my own personal experience. Jerry S. ------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BE3BEC.720FA0A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>Jerry Schueler <gschueler@netgsi.com>=20 writes
>>You seem to be the only one perceptive enough to pick=20 up
>>on this.  No, I mean it literally. Every divine Monad = is=20 exactly
>>like every other, no differences being observable at=20 all.
>
>Thank you kindly sir!  How do you test, or = propose to=20 test this?
>Alan
 
I have already done so, by comparing to Buddhist philosophy,
Theosophical writings, mystical writings around the world and
through the ages, and yes, by my own personal experience.
 
Jerry S.
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01BE3BEC.720FA0A0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 00:32:29 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Identical Monads Jerry Schueler writes >>Thank you kindly sir! How do you test, or propose to test this? >>Alan > > >I have already done so, by comparing to Buddhist philosophy, >Theosophical writings, mystical writings around the world and >through the ages, and yes, by my own personal experience. > Dear Jerry, This is another of those oddities which I have come across on a few occasions. I at one period asked of quite a large number of departed souls (not monads) whether reincarnation was a fact or not. Approximately half said yes, and half no! Simple conclusion to that one - just because you're dead, it doesn't mean you know everything :0). I wish some people could realize that the same is true when you're alive! Which brings me to the point. Having done (in my own way) the same as yourself, it has seemed to me unequivocally the case that there is a discrete difference between monads, even those who have never been incarnate on our planet, and who may never be. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:25:44 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: THEOSOPHY WORLD and theos-talk The THEOSOPHY WORLD and theos-talk archives, previously available online only in ftp format, are now online and accessible in html, text, and pkzip format. They can be accessed through a new top-level web page: Theosophy World The online archives will be updated on an occasional basis -- the time involved precludes their being updated every month -- but they currently are up-to-date as of the January 1999 issue and end-of-December theos-talk postings. Any comments or feedback on how to change/improve things are welcome. -- Eldon Tucker From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:25:27 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: THEOSOPHY WORLD and theos-talk The THEOSOPHY WORLD and theos-talk archives, previously available online only in ftp format, are now online and accessible in html, text, and pkzip format. They can be accessed through a new top-level web page: Theosophy World The online archives will be updated on an occasional basis -- the time involved precludes their being updated every month -- but they currently are up-to-date as of the January 1999 issue and end-of-December theos-talk postings. Any comments or feedback on how to change/improve things are welcome. -- Eldon Tucker From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:10:18 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: FW: Crowley vs Theosophical "Path" -----Original Message----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck [mailto:dalval@nwc.net] > Sent: Sunday, January 10, 1999 12:35 PM > To: Leon Maurer > > Subject: Crowley vs Theosophical "Path" Dec 10th 1999 Dear Leon: I had a quick look at some of Crowley's ideas and those of his followers like Israel Regardie several years ago. It seemed to me that they concentrated too much on personal development and not enough on the togetherness that marks those who follow the path that HPB and the Masters delineate. I would characterize that as "togetherness," or a compassion for one's companions and co-workers. And a desire to assist all with whom we have friendly or personal relations. I do not believe in following any other path than that which I choose. However I do look at the suggestions and reports on the trials that others expose to view. Also I try to take into consideration all that is reasonable and coherent. As Karma would have it, each pays eventually for the ethical aspect of the choices that they make. I would say we cannot escape from our past choices, and can only modify the effects of those by some form of personal change we might adopt now in receiving the result. If we resent our circumstances and focus our will on those whom we consider to be responsible, we miss the educative aspect of the various situations we encounter. I would say we ought to practice a certain detachment, so as to be able to turn "evil" into "good." Now, if we deem we are ephemera, (as personalities we may consider ourselves to be apart, and 'separate'), and exist for this present personal life only, then the errors of a personal desire for acceleration can be magnified, as we seek to cram as much experience and dare into the fleeting minutes and seconds of our waking lives - and usually regardless of the karmic consequences. Our "desire" makes us forget to check out the long-term effect of present motives and works. Our "Buddhi-Manas" [ our "Wise and Experienced-Mind"] is set on the back-burner as something that is too much of a brake to our desire for excitement and speed. I say: "Speed -- for what ?" Now, if we are immortals as MONADS [SPIRIT-SOUL-MIND], and if time as such is irrelevant, then, logically, why are we so much in a hurry ? Where do WE aim going? And if we ever get "there" what will we be doing after that ? Which is more valuable - the personality of this life-time, or the INDIVIDUALITY that is an eternal ENTITY ? Have we investigated the HIGHER SELF and its existence ? (See HPB's discussion over the Secret Doctrine with some of her pupils as reported in TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp 66 - 76 {of the ULT Edition) for instance carefully.) If it is difficult to answer these questions intelligently and briefly, as there are so many important points to define and consider, but for those who have some of the Theosophical fundamentals ready t mind on might say, briefly: then I would say there is some danger in the practices, or path that tries for personal results as practical magic for the personality only as shown. Does this make sense to you ? Best wishes, Dallas ======================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:10:22 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: Some Quotes from Theosophical Sources Jan 10th 1999 These quotes are offered for consideration by us all: Dallas ================================== "The first and fundamental dogma of Occultism is Universal Unity (or Homogeneity) under three aspects." SD I 58 "Esoteric philosophy teaches that everything lives and is conscious, but not that all life and consciousness are similar to those of human or even animal beings. Life we look upon as "the one form of existence," manifesting in what is called matter; or, as in man, what, incorrectly separating them, we name Spirit, Soul, and Matter." SD I 49 "The Secret Doctrine teaches the progressive development of everything, worlds as well as atoms; and this stupendous development has neither conceivable beginning nor imaginable end. Our "universe" is only one of an infinite number of Universes...links in the great Cosmic chain or Universes..." SD I 43 "Matter is the vehicle for the manifestation of soul on this plane of existence, and soul is the vehicle on a higher plane for the manifestation of spirit, and these three are a trinity synthesized by Life, which pervades them all --...universal life..." SD I 49 "The Finite cannot conceive the Infinite, nor can it apply to It its own standard of mental experiences...The matter-moving Nous [Mind], the animating Soul, immanent in every atom, manifested in man, latent in the stone, has different degrees of power; and this pantheistic idea of a general Spirit-Soul pervading all nature is the oldest of all the philosophical notions." SD I 51 "The idea that things can cease to exist and still BE, is a fundamental one in Eastern psychology." SD I 54 "Consciousness implies limitations and qualifications; something to be conscious of, and someone to be conscious of it. But ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS contains the cognizer, the thing cognized and the cognition, all three in itself and all three ONE." SD I 56 ""Every Soul-endowed man is an ANUPADAKA in a latent state. ANUPADAKA: "parentless," or, without progenitors is a mystical designation. [They are also named] Dhyan Chohans...Dhyani-Buddhas... [and] correspond mystically to the human Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. ] SD I 52 [ see also: HPB Articles Vol. II p. 271, "the perfected being; TRANSACTIONS, p. 50-52 ] "When MAHAT [Universal Mind] develops into the feeling of Self-Consciousness - "I" - then it assumes the name of Egoism...which means when MAHAT is transformed into the human Manas [Mind]...and becomes AHAM-ship [ I-AM-ness ]." SD I 75 "There is but One Universal Element, which is infinite, unborn, and undying, and that all the rest- as in the world of phenomena [our World] - are but so many various differentiated aspects and transformations (correlations...) of the ONE, from Cosmical down to microcosmical effects...then the first and chief difficulty will disappear and Occult Cosmology way be mastered." SD I 75 "All that we are is the result of what we have thought, all that we are is founded on our thoughts and made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him like his own shadow which never leaves him." Gautama Buddha DHAMMAPADA [ Footfalls of the Law - p. 1 Verse 2 ] "He reviled me, he beat me and then conquered and plundered me." Presses such thoughts tie their mind with the intention of retaliation. In them hatred does not cease." ( Verse 3 ) "In this world, never is enmity appeased by hatred; enmity is ever appeased by Love. This is the Law Eternal." [ Verse 5 ] "Those who live in the pleasure-ground of fancy, see truth in the unreal and untruth in the real. They never arrive at TRUTH." Verse 11 ] "Whoso lives pursuing pleasure, his senses unrestrained, immoderate in eating, indolent, devitalized-him, verily doth Mara [The demon of Temptation personified] uproot, as a gale uproots an ill-rooted tree." [ Verse 7 ] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:17:21 -0800 (PST) From: mark notzon Subject: Re: Identical Monads 11 Jan 98 Dear Dr. Bain, I am a new subscriber, and just read the latest list of messages---I am interested in the discussion on identity and Monads. Is a Monad on one of the seven rays of evolution, or are souls only on these rays? If Monads are on rays, would this not differentiate monads from one another? Mark ---"Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: > > Jerry Schueler writes > >>Thank you kindly sir! How do you test, or propose to test this? > >>Alan > > > > > >I have already done so, by comparing to Buddhist philosophy, > >Theosophical writings, mystical writings around the world and > >through the ages, and yes, by my own personal experience. > > > Dear Jerry, > > This is another of those oddities which I have come across on a few > occasions. I at one period asked of quite a large number of departed > souls (not monads) whether reincarnation was a fact or not. > Approximately half said yes, and half no! Simple conclusion to that one > - just because you're dead, it doesn't mean you know everything :0). I > wish some people could realize that the same is true when you're alive! > > Which brings me to the point. Having done (in my own way) the same > as yourself, it has seemed to me unequivocally the case that there is a > discrete difference between monads, even those who have never been > incarnate on our planet, and who may never be. Curiouser and > curiouser, said Alice. > > Alan > --------- > Simply Occult .......... > http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ > E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: mnotz@yahoo.com > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net > > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:41:48 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: A Parable Here is a parable by K from the book From Darkness to Light (a compilation of early K writings, now out-of-print): TOYS A child Had arranged on the polished floor Its toys, neatly and with care. The drum, The bugles, The cannons, The soldiers, And an officer with much gold-- Undoubtedly a field-marshall-- The long train With its polished engine, A tiny airplane, A big automobile, These were on one side. On the other, A doll with curly hair, Dressed in the latest fashion, Its bare knees showing, Black polished shoes With silk stockings. A little further away, Men in long coats and top hats, A bag With a string To bind them all. The child had gone. Then up sprang a man In long coat, with his hat in hand: "I represent God, And all of you listen. I have discovered Heaven and Hell. All who obey Go to Heaven and to the Paradise of Gods, But those who disobey To Hell and to great sorrows. I know who is fit and worthy of Heaven, I alone can give spiritual distinctions and spiritual titles, I alone can make a man happy or unhappy, I alone can introduce God to you, I alone know the path to Him, I am the priest of God." "I am the protector, the ruler And the dispenser of life, I, with my friends the merchants, Decide to wage wars, to kill and slaughter, To protect you, my friends, from your enemies. Our country is above all. Woe to all who do not kill, Who do not wear uniform, Who are unpatriotic -- which I decide. God is on our side, He waves the only flag -- our flag--" Roared the man with the sword and many ribbons. Then a large fat man spoke quietly: "You two may say what you please, I hold the monies. I am the dispenser of all things, Of temporal power, Of cruelty and kindness, Of progress and evolution, Without me nothing shall be decided. I am a man of great wealth, Thy wealth shalt be the only God, I have finished." Then the man whom nobody noticed spoke, Spoke: "I can destroy all your Gods, Your theories and your wealth, Without me you can do nothing. You cannot talk to me of God When I am hungry, Feed me and I will listen to your Gods. You cannot make me Into cannon fodder. Pay me and excite me And I shall fight. You are rich because of me, I toil for you, suffer for you, I am your food and your comfort, Your love and your destroyer, I am going to strip you of all these, Now I strike." Then the lady with bare knees-- "I am laughing Because each of you thinks You are the most important. Glorying in your own importance Where would you all be without me? Still in that Heaven or Hell Of which you spoke, O friend with the long coat. I am your sister, your mother, Your wife and your love. I am on the stage of your bestial amusement, I bear children--the agony of it--for your pleasure, I dress showing just enough For your pleasure, I paint and make a fool of myself For your pleasure, I covet your glances and long for your love, I desire children without you, I seek freedom in spite of you, I struggle to be free of your desires, To show my equality, I do things that astonish you, I shall usurp all your places, Your honors, your glories. You worship me, You desecrate me. I am woman But your master." Then all began to talk, Advancing this complicated theory and that complicated theory, This solution and that solution, Class against class, Wealth against poverty, Hungry against the well-fed. A roar and utter chaos. The child came back, Gathered up its toys, Knocking down one or two In its hurry. Then it went out, Laughing. -- J. KRISHNAMURTI From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:09:58 +0100 From: Katinka Hesselink Subject: (no subject) Dear all, I am late in responding, because it is not possible for me to read my e-mail over the holiday's, so I had 200(!) e-mails waiting for me after christmas and new-years. I only finished reading all of them yesterday and now I am responding. About the tanticism-issue: it seems very simple to me. If leading tantrics atmit that sexrelated words are hardly (or not) used in the original text: that they have in fact chosen to interpret them as sex-related, then we can simply conclude, as far as I'm concerned: that h.p.b. was right. They have debased spirituality into a more convenient form. They have assumed that because sex was such a strong factor in most of our lives, it must be important in spirituality too. It seems to me that Krishnamurti can be of help in this: he says, also in the e-mail for this month, that sex is alright, as long as there is love. What that means to me is that sex is simply irelevant to spirituality. It does not realy come into the same sphere. When we need sex, we need it. If there are people that do not, they don't. Supressing sexual impulses is not advised by psychology and I do not know of theosophical sourses that do advise it. On the other hand there are *normal* morals we have to live by because a sexual impulse is not enough reason to force oneself on someone. But I will asume that we all know that. Katinka Katinka Hesselink, hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:35:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Identical Monads This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE3D76.3BC739A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Which brings me to the point. Having done (in my own way) the same >as yourself, it has seemed to me unequivocally the case that there is a >discrete difference between monads, even those who have never been >incarnate on our planet, and who may never be. Curiouser and >curiouser, said Alice. > >Alan The logical problem with your conclusion is that the divine Monad (and I am only addressing the divine Monad) is supposed to be perfect. If any differences exist whatsoever, then one has to be "better" in some way than another, and thus the "lesser" can't be perfect. The only way that I can see for "perfection" or "completeness" to be assigned is for all to be absolutely 100% identical. Perhaps your "different" monads were "rays" rather than the=20 divine Monads? Jerry S. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE3D76.3BC739A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>Which brings me to the point.  Having done (in my own way) = the=20 same
>as yourself, it has seemed to me unequivocally the case that = there=20 is a
>discrete difference between monads, even those who have = never=20 been
>incarnate on our planet, and who may never be.  = Curiouser=20 and
>curiouser, said Alice.
>
>Alan
 
The logical problem with your conclusion is that the divine Monad=20 (and
I am only addressing the divine Monad) is supposed to be = perfect.
If any differences exist whatsoever, then one has to be = "better"=20 in some
way than another, and thus the "lesser" can't be = perfect. =20 The only
way that I can see for "perfection" or = "completeness"=20 to be assigned
is for all to be absolutely 100% identical.
 
Perhaps your = "different" monads=20 were "rays" rather than the
divine = Monads?
 
Jerry S.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01BE3D76.3BC739A0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:13:11 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Identical Monads mark notzon writes >Dear Dr. Bain, > > I am a new subscriber, and just read the latest >list of messages---I am interested in the discussion on identity and >Monads. Is a Monad on one of the seven rays of evolution, or are souls >only on these rays? >If Monads are on rays, would this not differentiate monads from one >another? > >Mark Dear Mark, As I don't subscribe to the seven rays of evolution idea, this is a question for someone else, I suspect. However, if your last sentence is in accord with the theory, well yes, it would! Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:26:23 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Identical Monads Jerry Schueler writes >Having done (in my own way) the same >>as yourself, it has seemed to me unequivocally the case that there is a >>discrete difference between monads, even those who have never been >>incarnate on our planet, and who may never be. Curiouser and >>curiouser, said Alice. >> >>Alan > > >The logical problem with your conclusion is that the divine Monad (and >I am only addressing the divine Monad) is supposed to be perfect. Ah. "Supposed to be." Much depends on what you understand by "divine." In my theology/osophy the number of such monads equals One, so there can be no differentiation in the first place. >If any differences exist whatsoever, then one has to be "better" in some >way than another, and thus the "lesser" can't be perfect. Why should this be so? Although we seem to approach the matter from differing standpoints, given your argument, why cannot they be perfect *and* different. is there, for some obscure reason, only one sort of "perfect" ? > The only >way that I can see for "perfection" or "completeness" to be assigned >is for all to be absolutely 100% identical. > >Perhaps your "different" monads were "rays" rather than the >divine Monads? You will see in another post that I don't receive the doctrine of "rays" - so we are on a loser here! My experience of what I recognise as monads is their singularity. That includes the highest level of me. [Gibbers quietly in corner, waiting for men in white coats. Wonders, "If they arrive wearing pink coats, should I be worried?"] Alan :0) --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:58:22 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World AC/HPB and the Launching of the TS Jan 12th 1999 HPB wrote early in the history of modern Theosophy: [Blavatsky: COLLECTED WORKS Vol. 1, p. 300 ] "In the name, then, of logic and common sense, before bandying epithets, let us submit our differences to the arbitrament of reason. Let us compare all things, putting aside emotionalism and prejudice as unworthy of the logician and the experimentalist, hold fast only to that which passes the ordeal of ultimate analysis." BCW I 300 [ "Views of the Theosophists," Modern Panarion, p. 132, end of the article ] I believe this criteria ought to rule us all in the matter of controversy In that very same volume I, on pp. 121-5 the formation of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is spread out as history, by quoting from HPB's SCRAPBOOKS. On pages 72-3, 94 are additional references. In the magazine PATH, Vol. 10, p. 368-9 a difference in procedure is described by HPB, as she attributes to Judge, and not to Olcott, the first writing of a note suggesting the starting of the TS. On p. 124 Vol. 1 of the B: C W one will find the names of the original 16 founding members of the T S. Of these only HPB, Olcott and Judge remained members to the end of their respective lives, supporting and promoting the T and Theosophy. If we are going to exchange notes about History, then let us go to information that is accurate - it will save time and maintain credibility for the writers. Best wishes, Dallas. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:02:16 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: HPB -- What is the Theosophy that she taught ? How valuable is it to us to consider ? Jan 12th 1999 Dear Friends: Whatever the "typical Theosophical viewpoint" may be in some people's minds, it is in fact as diverse as humanity is. Why is that? Why is it that people cannot be lumped into a group by the imagination of others, and there are always exceptions ? If one is truly aware of what Theosophy teaches, then one becomes aware of the universality of our condition, and the many ramifications that we constantly establish and change. We are to that extent KARMIC "agents" with a great freedom to alter our condition and position (if we know what it is and what our powers truly are). Yet, we as those, many "Karmic agents" are ourselves wrapped in other laws that cannot be destroyed or broken. It would be a fallacy to believe that the laws of society and human relationships are variable and flexible while the whole of Nature's rules and regulations ( as in mathematics, chemistry, engineering, physics or astronomy ) are rigid and not "flexible or whimsical. [ Why do WE endow "God" (if a personal and anthropomorphic 'god' is meant) with human attributes, vanity, pride, favoritism, etc... ? ] Unfortunately there is altogether too much of the characterization by "name," "fame" and prejudice, one way or the other, and it seems to be assumed these can be used as a kind of a universal lever to settle one's opinions vs. others. This gets no one anywhere, and one might as well not respond to such arguments. However they need underlining. Impartially, then, there are many powers and forces in ourselves which are reflections of their far greater counterparts in NATURE. Those are the great LAWS - the "KARMA" of a Universe, of a Galaxy, of a Solar System or of a World, like our Earth, if you will. The common regulations which we all depend on for living. Not just human relations, but food, shelter, protection, etc... and then inter-action and cooperation among millions of human beings, known, and unknown. We cannot intellectually or morally ever totally isolate ourselves, from the mass of humanity. And any "progress" we may make, inevitably reacts on others, and like the head of a Comet, we have a trail of sympathizers (and non-sympathizers) in our van. Then what are we ? We are mind-beings says Theosophy, and we live in a physical body made up of all the elements of Nature, visible and invisible. We are immortal Spirit-Souls, or Monads (Spirit-Mind-Body) in essential constitution. We temporarily, for this life-time, adopt the mind attitude (if we let ourselves do this) of our PERSONALITY - the lower, embodied desire-entwined mind. A little reflection can assure each of us of the accuracy of this situation. As mind-beings we have the power to decide our own future, employing the motives, and understanding of our universe we have so far adopted. But we need to find out if indeed the feelings we have, and the passions we give residence to, are different from the "Mind." What does THEOSOPHY do: It sets before us the concept that there is actually a far greater horizon of facts than in our religions, politics and community beliefs and mores, that we have to take into account. To that extent it liberates our minds and offers for consideration more important views that the ordinary I-MYSELF-ALONE. What does the philosophy of THEOSOPHY offer: 1. It shows that the Universe is ONE in its essentiality. In regard to the ultimate SOURCE from which the emanation of the evolutionary cycle begins, the SECRET DOCTRINE (I - 445) Offers: "There was neither day nor night, nor sky nor earth, nor darkness nor light, nor any other thing save only ONE, unapprehensible by intellect, or THAT which is Brahma and Pums (Spirit) and Pradhana (crude matter)." A similar extract from the Rig-Veda will be fund in the SD I p. 26 - a slightly different rendition of the same ideas. 2. We are a part of it and share in every part of its potentials. These are, briefly: SPIRIT or "Supreme Being, symbolized by "Truth and Goodness." MATTER or "Body and Form", symbolized by selfishness and isolation. And, finally, MIND or Universal Consciousness and Intelligence, which at the time of 'manifestation' emanates myriads of undying MONADS, symbolized by its "Rays" - and these are an enormous range of immortal beings ranging in potential from the "atoms" through mankind, to the Highest of the Beings one can imagine - the Buddhas, Dhyan Chohans, and "Creators" who are fully aware of the actuality of the Nature of the Universe, and make themselves AGENTS for the evolutionary wave, and They are primarily active in the framing of a new evolutionary pattern out of the memories and remnants of the older ones. We think of them as Sages, Rishis, Mahatmas, Patriarchs, Elohim, Creators, "Gods," Builders, and they form the ancient College of the WISE. 3. Spirit (or ultimate Good as Law) sustains all life. Matter (as form and apparent limits) serves seemingly to isolate us. Our MIND is able to see both positions and therefore is an "arbiter" and a decision maker. We are not bound by the prejudices of our education and up-bringing, but are free to make decisions for ourselves-within certain limits. And, those limits can be ascertained. 4. The MIND in humans is a specialized organ of PERCEPTION. It is in itself independent and free, but may allow itself to be swayed or colored, temporarily or for long times by "OPINIONS." And these opinions may be either true or false.. 5. The faculty of "desire, and passion - emotion, instinct, etc.," is a most potent one and is the product of the gradual evolution of the powers that emanate from the form side of evolution. They are "personal" in the sense that they MASK our true nature not only from ourselves, but from others for a long or short time. When the difference between desire and mind is perceived the "mask" falls and the true nature of our personality and our mind stands revealed in the forum of the ONE SPIRITUAL RAY which is the MONAD in evolution. Thus we are able to "see ourselves." 6. The distinction between "good and evil" or "pleasure and pain" becomes on whereby we perceive the results of our choices. In a Universe that runs under law we either assist or delay and/or retard our own progress and that of others by deliberately or unconsciously choosing to act with or against the great laws. 7. Evolution is universal. The "Atom" is as much under law as we are, or as the rest of the Earth is. It is ONE LAW and not many. It is the same for all. It is essentially the brotherhood of MONADS - each an IMMORTAL. To sum it up as HPB does in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY (p. 233) : "Let me briefly remind you what these principles are-universal Unity and Causation; Human solidarity; the Law of Karma; Reincarnation. These are the four golden links of the golden chain which should bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood." KEY 233 It is quite probable that there are those who will say: all that is basic Theosophy. True. But on an applications of thee basics to any situation, question, or proposition, an answer can be derived which will be in tune with the rest. With best wishes to all, Dallas ======================= From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:25:02 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World == PRATYEKHA BUDDHA and NIRVANA Jan 12th 1999 Even if the subject of the PRATYEKHA Buddha and the PASSI buddha were not taken up in the S.D. there are hints there that relate to them when we start with the definitions we are given in VOICE p. 47 footnote at the end of THE TWO PATHS THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, p. 261 - HPB devotes 1/2 a page to explaining this (idem.) p. 345 (top of the page) under "Trikaya" "this Pratyekha Buddha state refers to him who lives all for himself and very little for others, occupying the middle of the vehicle, filling it all and leaving no room for others. Such is the selfish candidate for Nirvana." Theos. Glossary P. 232 Nirvana, Nirvani MAHATMA LETTERS, p. 115 [ XVI ] The Master explains the difference between the "Passi" or "Pratyekha" [ the perfection of the "personal vehicle" ] and the "Amita" or "Amrita" Buddha which is the perfection of the "immortal vehicle." This distinction is made clear in KEY p. 113 bottom The forced return from Nirvana of such MONADS as take this temporary isolation or "Liberation Path" is described in suggestive passages in THE SECRET DOCTRINE See: SD I 371 329-330 571 SD II 79-80 109-110 233fn In the Magazine THE THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT (Bombay) references to this are made in T Mvt. Vol. 10,p. 174; T Mvt. Vol. 14, p. 11 Also in THE ARYAN PATH (Bombay ULT) Vol. 1, p. 656. In Mr. Judge's COLLECTED ARTICLES edited and published by Theosophy Company references will be found in Vol. 1, p. 9, 390 to the state of the personality that, perfected but selfish in personality, adopts Nirvana and severs its connection with mankind for a long time, until karma forces it to reunite and re-enter the stream of evolution again. In a collection of Mr. Judge's ANSWERS from the THEOSOPHICAL FORUM (Theos. Company) p. 4. The distinction between a Nirvanee and a JIVANMUKTA is made clear. [ see also T. Glossary p. 165 ) Nirvana is called a Maya SD II 615, [ a personal state - SD II 610 ] Blavatsky, COLLECTED WORKS, Vol. 6, p. 248-9 the ultimate fate of the MONAD is discussed. MOKSHA ( Liberation) T Glos 216, ISIS II 116-117 286 320-322 I hope this proves to be of help. Dallas =================================== -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > Bazzer > Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 11:50 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: RE: Theos-World Mindless quotes As far as one is aware. . . . Nowhere in "The Secret Doctrine" is Pratyeka Buddha ever mention ed. Not even once. Conclusions?! Best wishes, Paul Rich: <<> Pratyekabuddhas are considered higher than Arhats, Paul: > Or, by reverse logic, Arhats are considered lower than Pratyeka Buddhas. > Yes? Well, no. This is complete nonsense. > From "The Voice of the Silence". > > Concerning Pratyeka-Buddha (Glossary to Part II): > > "Caring nothing for the woes of mankind or to help it, but only for their > own *bliss*, they enter Nirvana and - disappear from the sight and hearts > of men. In Northern Buddhism a 'Pratyeka Buddha' is a synonym of spiritual > Selfishness" (Glossary to Part II). > Further, (Glossary to Part III): > > "(32). In the Northern Buddhist phraseology all the great Arhats, Adepts > and Saints are called Buddhas. > > (33). A *Bodhisattva* is, in the hierarchy, less than a "perfect Buddha." > In the exoteric parlance these two are very much confused. Yet the innate > and right popular perception, owing to that self-sacrifice, has placed a > Bodhisattva higher in its reverence than a Buddha." > > (34). This same popular reverence calls "Buddhas of Compassion" those > *Bodhisattvas* who, having reached the rank of an Arhat (i.e., have > completed the *fourth* or *seventh* Path), refuse to pass into > the Nirvanic > state or 'don the *Dharmakaya* robe and cross to the other shore,' as it > would then become beyond their power to assist men even so little as Karma > permits. . . . . .>> > > Paul! You can quote well, but you have really confused all the > above terms. > And your quotes, out of context, actually confuse matters more, > because you > haven't read any Buddhism, you only have HPB's scattered > definitions. You are > content to parrot HPB word-for-word, and then throw down the > gauntlet as if > you've proven your point. Quotes from HPB, however, really only > prove that > you own her books and can read them. > > Here's a different, "overview" method, and you will see both the > skill and the > idiosyncrasy of HPB. This is my paraphrasing of Buddhist > definitions, and I > invite other students of Buddhism to back me up or show that I am wrong: > > (1) Arhats are graduates of the Hinayana (small vehicle) path. They are > considered "freed from impurities" and thus freed from the wheel > of rebirth. > They are free to go on to Nirvana. "Arhat" literally means "one > who has slain > the enemies." Arhats are NOT enlightened, not omniscient, only "free." > > (2) Pratyekabuddhas *are* considered higher adepts, by *BUDDHISM* > (which is > what I wrote, if you bothered to check). These beings are considered > enlightened (meaning far-seeing and wise) as well as free from bondage > karmically. Their name means literally "prati-eka" (by oneself) "buddha" > (enlightened). But they did not put in the lifetimes of > compassion to develop > the higher virtues of skill-in-means and compassion to be able to > help others. > Thus, in a spiritual sense, they are wise but selfish. Not in > the sense of > selfish as in "hurting others" but in the sense of "leaving them to their > fate" and proceeding on to Nirvana. No one in Buddhism, southern > or northern, > worships the Pratyekabuddhas, though both traditions mention them > as existing. > > (3) Bodhisattva. A "wisdom-being," one who has taken a vow to become a > Buddha, and is variously progressed along that path. Many of us > on this list > have taken the vow, but I suspect we are more "embryonic bodhisattvas." > Still, our heart is in the right place. Certain mythological > bodhisattvas are > worshipped by the masses, because they are considered to be *just > about* to > become Buddhas (like Maitreya), or because they have been > bodhisattvas so long > they have developed tremendous powers, nearly equal to a full Buddha > (Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara). > > (4) A Buddha, a *samyak-sambuddha*, a "fully enlightened Master" > is the only > one who, having freed himself, has the ability to free others in whatever > their condition, language, culture, race, or psychological > problems. These > beings are worshipped. These beings are rare, and are said to > incarnate very > seldom, perhaps once a kalpa. And a kalpa, by anyone's defition, > is a long, > long time. Because they are so precious, their writings are > preserved very > carefully, because that may be all we have for a long time to > come. HPB calls > the recent Buddha "the highest adept ever to appear on the planet." > > What I have written above is all from BUDDHIST points of view, not > Theosophical. Now, having gotten some authentic Buddhism, we > compare to HPB's > quotes provided by Paul, and see that in some cases she is > talking loosely. > > When HPB speaks of "the great Arhats," she is not referring to all Arhats, > only the great ones. These are Buddhas. But you couldn't know > that unless > you had read some Buddhism outside of HPB. > > Next quote: HPB first says bodhisattvas are lower than Buddhas, but the > exoteric masses rightly put them above Buddhas. This is wrong, in theory, > according to HPB, but both beings a masters of compassion and > self-sacrifice. > Therefore, in this paragraph, HPB is emphasizing that fact. She still > believes Buddhas are higher than bodhisattvas. She says so. > > The final quote also shows that Arhats are lower, then those who > "pass on" are > bodhisattvas, and those who complete the goal are Buddhas. It > doesn't mention > pratyekabuddhas at all. So it's not a terribly helpful quote. > > I state again that HPB is not making up these terms, she is borrowing them > from source material, which 99% of Theosophists haven't bothered > to read for > themselves. It causes a great deal of confusion, and embarrasses us to > inquirers who have studied other traditions. Because all we can > say is "we > have faith in HPB" and we can't prove why. One reason we know she's > authentic, however, is because we see HPB time and again using > technical terms > "correctly," the way the native traditions use them. Then she > adds more, the > esoteric side. > > Rich > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:15:24 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World AC/HPB -- "Black Magic" Jan 13th 1999 Dallas offers: KUNDALINI SAKTI is described in SD I 292-3, VOICE footnotes on page 10 and 13; THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, p. 182, 13 (Akasa), 330 (See Isis I xlii-iii, 368-9); 10 (Agni Dhatu Samadhi). As far as I can determine KUNDALINI has not been related to sexual or creative action on this the physical gross-matter plane, unless it has been debased by promiscuity. But perhaps someone has some reference that clarifies this better. If so please advise me. I would be grateful to know of it. As far as I know some of the TANTRAS are full of descriptions and directions - but are they accurate? Are they designed to obscure, and act as "blinds?" I do not think that a literal translation of any oriental text is ever accurate to the point of spiritualizing meanings, and the transmutation (from literal writings to universal understanding) has to be done in one's own mind and under the direction of the interior INITIATOR: the HIGHER SELF (ATMA-BUDDHI), as a result of long and deep study, - one in which the whole of the Esoteric Philosophy is grasped and at hand for the SPIRITUAL WILL to use. And that is what I understand that true INITIATION means - there is no sudden gift, nor can any lessons for money, ever give the real meaning of these things. The disciple under the guidance of a True Teacher, with every moral faculty fully developed can alone be trusted to Initiate himself. In this sense all the 7 Saktis are combined into their synthetic SEVENTH (not described) and the transformation is interior, as suggested in THE ELIXIR OF LIFE, [ FIVE YEARS OF THEOSOPHY, p. 1] Dallas ===================================================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:47:32 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Response to Rich == Who and where is GAUTAMA BUDDHA today ? Jan 13th 1999 Dallas offers references on this: Please see VOICE OF THE SILENCE p. 78-9 footnote. "The DHARMAKAYA body is that of a complete Buddha, i.e., no body at all, but an ideal breath; Consciousness merged in the Universal Consciousness, or Soul devoid of every attribute. Once a Dharmakaya, an Adept or Buddha leaves behind him every possible relation with or thought for, this earth. [ also see PRATYEKHA BUDDHA VOICE p. 47 footnote ] Thus to be enabled to help humanity, an Adept who has won the right to Nirvana, "renounces the DHARMAKAYA body" in mystic parlance; keeps of the SAMBHOGAKAYA only the great and complete knowledge, and remains in his NIRMANAKAYA body. The Esoteric School teaches that Gautama Buddha, with several of his Arhats, is such a NIRMANAKAYA, higher than whom on account of the great renunciation and sacrifice for mankind, there is none known." VOICE p. 78 FOOTNOTE In the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY, refer to GAUTAMA BUDDHA, BUDDHA, NIRMANAKAYA, SAMBHOGAKAYA, and DHARMAKAYA, also TRIKAYA. I hope this serves to clear up some definitions. We all ought to make it a practice to look up these things on our own in those wonderful books: SECRET DOCTRINE, ISIS UNVEILED, KEY TO THEOSOPHY, VOICE OF THE SILENCE and the THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY. The major works all have INDEXES and those enable s to trace references which we can each assemble for accuracy and a deepened understanding. In the study of Occultism and all tools available ought to be used. Our "initiation" depends on the work that WE do. It is not a gift. It is self-evolved by great and persistent effort. Those are my thoughts on the subject. Dallas =================================================I -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of Jerry > Schueler > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 4:52 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Response to Rich >I think we should distinguish between full enlightenment, and the extinction >of "presence" implied by Nirvana. We must assume, I think, that Lord Gautama >was fully enlightened, yet Mahayanists (and HPB) say that he is still >"around." > >Rich So far as I know, this is one of the basic differences between the Theravadin and Mahayana. HPB was clearly in the Mahayana camp. Jerry S. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:58:06 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 08, 1999 Katinka wrote: >Humanism seems so cold to me, at least what I know of it, >which isn't much. I think that the whole foundation falls >out under humanism once a higher something is recognised. Yes, I agree with you that Humanism can seem cold. The view that there is nothing beyond what is here right now can carry a message of hopelessness and purposeless. Of course, depending on how a person interprets Humanism, the philosophy itself can serve as a foundation of Compassion and Kindness. Humanists tend to be very active politically and socially due to the fact that they want a 'good' world right now, not later. There are some Humanists who use the philosophy for purely self-serving gains, but they, to me, have misunderstood the message. . .'course, they'll tell me I've misunderstood the message. . .and so it goes. . .. The foundation of Humanism, though, to me, does not fall with the view that there may be more than what is presently before us. I believe that the foundation of Humanism is to bring forth a better world and that seems to be the same foundation as other views, such as Theosophy. Perhaps you and I see two different foundations of Humanism? Or maybe two different foundations of Theosophy? Being human can be fun, eh?! >What I know of Sufi-philosophy (Islam-mysticism) makes me >doubt that the way women are often treated in Islamic >countrys has anything to do with Islamic-philosophy as >Mohammed meant it. I hestitate to say this, as it smacks of arrogance, but Sufi-philosophy is a bit more - dare I say it - "sophisticated" than the philosophy of the Islamists. Muhammed did, in the Koran, speak of the equality of male and female, but demanded that his own wives remain segregated from full social interaction. He didn't want other men lusting after "his" wives. . .an immediate problem arises when a man thinks of another woman as "his." The Koran also states that it is acceptable to kill Christians and Jews. . .another idea ripe with permission for those who claim to 'kill for God.' >Did you know that the veils were >originally meant as a protection for the women so they >would not be mistaken for men, and beaten up for that >reason? That is what I've heard. You may be right. But it would seem to me that, logically, a woman who is UNVIELED is more clearly seen as a woman than as a man. A man could, by this reasoning, cover himself and pretend to be a male to escape beatings! It is easier to determine a male from a female if they are UNCOVERED rather than covered. There are physical differences between male and female that make such determinations possible without the need for veils (well, duh, Kym). This excuse may be used as a reason to keep women covered, but it doesn't pass the smell test. I had read that it was due to the fact that men believed that women could 'drag them down' by sexual trappings, and the only way to avoid such temptation was to remove the individuality and power of women by making them 'invisible.' What this is suggesting is that it is women, NOT men, who are responsible for men's loss of sexual control. Sorry, gentlemen, it ain't so. The Bible also required women to have their heads covered as a sign of submission to their husbands - women were not to ask questions in church, but to save them for the home and ask their husbands for the answers. >Is it pushy to recognize differences between people? Well, in a way, yes. Recognizing 'differences' between people serves as a means to pass judgment. Humans 'label' people as stupid, sentimental, immature, smart, wise, good and bad. If humans were to look at people as being no more or no less than each other, humanity may find itself more compassionate and forgiving. You mentioned differences in 'intelligence' - I agree that there are different intelligences, but we consider some intelligence more important than others when that may not be the case. For example, a person who is illiterate may not be able to work in any other place except McDonalds, but he/she may excell in intelligence regarding the raising of children or raising a garden to feed his/her family and neighbors. I don't think humanity realizes the IMPORTANCE of having those who have "different intelligences." Different intelligences are what maintains balance. The smartest person in the world may be colder than ice. Those who respond to events and people with violence or cruelty does not, to me, show their level of intelligence - rather, it reflects the very notion we are discussing - they perceive a difference in others and fear it - and work to rid the world and themselves from it. The doctrine of difference, to me, is the cause of more 'hatred' and fear than any other doctrine I can think of. Who can judge who is a Mahatma or a "regular" person? What distinguishes the two? Even Jesus went ballistic in the temple. . .. How do I know if you are really a "normal" person named Katinka, or a Mahatma writing and utilizing cyberspace to further Love and Compassion? Maybe I should just quit worrying about the differences - and treat you, and all, like they may just be Mahatmas incognito? >It is of course better if we do things for the good itself. >That is also a theosophical thought, and Blavatsky stresses >it enormously in *The Voice of the Silence*. But isn't it >better to act decently on ulterior motives than not to act >decently at all? I agree, it is better to act decently no matter what - and, perhaps, acting decently for "the good itself" can be considered an ulterior motive. Maybe acting WITHOUT an ulterior motive is to act for NOTHING at all and that may not be humanly possible. You've brought up a good point. >I think you ask all the right questions, a it is a joy to >read your e-mails. Thank you. My ego enjoyed the compliment which proves I still have an ego and I thought we were supposed to get rid of our egos and now you've just proven to me I still have one and I have one in abundance. Hmmmm. . .. >answers are so boring, I hope I haven't bored you. Not in the least, Katinka. Besides, as a poet's mother once said "If you're bored, it means you have no inner resources." I really hope that that is bunk, though. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 20:03:44 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Messenger posts Dec 17th 1998 Dear Paul: It was W. Q. Judge in his article THE CLOSING CYCLE "Irish Theosophist" January 1895 who wrote: "H. P. Blavatsky has clearly pointed out in the KEY, in her conclusion, that the plan is to keep the T.S. alive as an active, free, unsectarian body during all the time of waiting for the next great messenger, who will be herself beyond question....And in all this time of waiting the Master, "that great Initiate, whose single will upholds the entire movement," will have his mighty hand spread out wide behind the society." [ ULT Edn. Of WQJ ARTICLES, VOL. 2, P. 153 ] De Puruker no doubt picked his statement from that. Dallas ================================== ----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of K. > Paul Johnson > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 2:07 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Theos-World Messenger posts Hey all, Thanks to Dallas, Jerry S. and Chuck for commenting on the question. I recall the "last quarter" messenger being of great interest to John Coats around 1975, but no discussion of the topic post-Radha's election. Grace Knoche talked about it around 1980, discouraging people from thinking Krishnamurti or the Dalai Lama was the messenger, but not being too insistent that there'd be one. Purucker of course claimed that HPB herself would be returning. I'll mention the original sources for the idea, as well as various explanations of the last-quarter timetable that have been put forth. If anyone has additional information I welcome further discussion. BTW Gnosis for Winter 1999 is the first periodical to come through with a review of Edgar Cayce in Context. Another should be out in ten days or so from Venture Inward. Cheers, Paul -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 02:03:02 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Waiting for the Messenger Dec 15th 1998 Paul: Did you not ask recently a somewhat similar question ? I recall that someone did. HPB is the one who stated that every century, towards the end of that period (the last 25 years) the Great Lodge of Adepts sent a "messenger" to work with our western civilization (now diffused around the world). She says this at the end of THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY and also in one of her MESSAGES TO THE AMERICAN THEOSOPHISTS. She also attributes this decision to Tson-Ka-pa. It is supposed to have started in the 13th Cent. I have not seem any claims made, nor have there been any outstanding work, efforts, or revelations. And although I keep in touch with almost all the Theosophical journals, I have not seen any claims made there. However the changes in science, philosophy, psychology, sociology, ecology and politics around the world for the last 50 years are remarkable, when compared with earlier times. Some where the Theosophical influence seems to have been focused in many places for the general improvement of mankind and attitudes of life. If we look for those who have been instrumental in achieving these changes we will find a range of people, thinkers, statesmen, scientists, etc... they are all around the world, and apparently work where they are able. There have been some serious problems: genocide in Africa, in the Balkans, and in Asia Minor repressive measures taken against the populace are seen, but are they very serious taken in comparison with the whole trend ? This leads me to believe that the influence of the Theosophy of the S D has been felt quietly but definitely in many areas and strata of society. Materialism is yet to be broken as a concept that marks the be-all and end-all of life. A little thought will do that since OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCES and AFTER DEATH REMINISCENCES are more prominently considered than before. The present NEW AGE search and concepts, while not very well guided, and seemingly wasteful of energy and goal, are examples of a longing for values which are not based on money, fame, popularity, etc... The Spiritual-Individuality immortality concept and the individual responsibility (Karma) concept (Reincarnation and karma) seem to have left their impress. Next will be probably an inquiry to the general goals and trends of people in the world. I think we will have to wait for that to show itself. In one way the questioning of "authority" and establishing one's own ability to understand and grasp fundamental and universal ideas now seem to show itself - in a general way. In other words, there may be active among us many "messengers," whose ability to conceal themselves does not preclude a united effort that is changing the minds and objectives of the world at large. I don't think we have the ability to perceive this in its quiet, silent, behind-the-scenes working, but we have developed the ability to suspect its presence. And that is how I see the scene around us. Perhaps you have read more into it than I have. Best wishes, Dallas Inquiry edited for brevity - DTB > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 1998 1:38 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Theos-World Waiting for the Messenger I've subscribed for a time to solicit information and opinion on the subject of an article I'm working on. This will explain the idea of a messenger from the Masters coming in every last quarter-century, and various Theosophical developments arising from it. If anyone can refer me to pronouncements on this subject that have been made recently in any Theosophical journals or elsewhere, I would appreciate it. Also welcome reader suggestions on how to interpret the issue. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:44:43 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 17, 1998 In a message dated 12/18/98 12:01:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, theos- l@list.vnet.net writes: << Knowing what is right and doing wrong is different, but when one DOES NOT know - why should one suffer retribution, especially lifetimes apart from the action and the retribution? >> I'm thinking that retribution should not be confused with consequences - even when one does not know that one is doing something wrong, there will be consequences from which one may suffer - one might even say "impersonal" consequences in the sense that they are not intended to punish but are merely the reaction of the laws of nature. For example, you drape a piece of clothing over your halogen lamp, not realizing that the lamp can get hot enough to burn the clothing. Then your place burns down, and possibly you along with it. Is this retribution? No, simple cause and effect. Or - was it a bad idea for my father to start smoking when he was young? Yes, although he probably just wanted to be "cool" and didn't consider the long-term consequences. Is it retribution that my mother now has lung problems as a result of my father's second-hand smoke? Nope, just the physical consequences of breathing in second-hand smoke for decades. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:53:46 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 20, 1998 In a message dated 12/21/98 12:01:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, theos- l@list.vnet.net writes: << We had to learn as kids that shrapnel should not be picked up - it is often hot enough to burn you badly - I have even seen it glowing red in the street - we had dogfights overhead where we lived, and often saw planes spiralling down into the sea. >> It's always so interesting to me how these back-and-forth discussions often start out in the abstract and lead toward personal revelation. It confirms my theory that much of our ideas and theories about life are rooted in personal experience, even those we think of as most abstract. I'm sure this is true of myself and I can see it in others too. For example, much of Alan's sympathy toward the Iraqis is likely rooted in his own experience of WWII. And sometimes our blindnesses are rooted in *lack* of experience - we blithely traipse along with a pet theory about something, until real-life experience blows it out of the water and we are forced to re-think things. It's happened to me... Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 02:02:00 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 08, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net writes and Bad Alan interjects: >A man could, by >this reasoning, cover himself and pretend to be a male to escape beatings! What a superb typo - ROFL! >It is easier to determine a male from a female if they are UNCOVERED rather >than covered. There are physical differences between male and female that >make such determinations possible without the need for veils (well, duh, >Kym). You been reading Naturist mags again? > This excuse may be used as a reason to keep women covered, but it >doesn't pass the smell test. Is there, I wonder, a cybersmell? Yes - it is to be found in unsolicited e-mail! ...sorry ... couldn't resist ... Alan :0) --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 22:02:14 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 21, 1998 In a message dated 12/22/98 12:01:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, theos- l@list.vnet.net writes: << However, I have read biographies of those who, during WWII, were in concentration camps that found themselves cherring and finding hope every time they saw Allied bombing planes flying overhead. Of course, the German citizens found no such hope and were very frightened - and many innocent men, women, and children were killed or horribly maimed... For every war and bombing, there are some who find relief and liberation; others find death and destruction >> That is so true. I remember visiting Germany some time back (1983); the family I stayed with said they thought of the Americans as their heroes and liberators during WWII - some were happy to be rid of the Nazi regime and understood the bombings as a "necessary evil" - kind of like amputating your leg to save your life, I guess. - and I also remember my shock and sadness in viewing the before-and-after bombing shots of the Cologne Cathedral and the destruction of human art that they represented. One of the members of the German family I stayed with had been taken as a prisoner of war by the Americans, and he described the experience with fondness and nostalgia! Go figure. War is a strange thing, and sometimes the most horrible and the most heroic acts happen simultaneously. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:33:53 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Does grief have dominion over death? Kym, >It seems we must grieve - some of us harder than others. Maybe we need to >be taught "how" to grieve rightly. . .but it is so, so, so difficult. It certainly is. It is as natural to grieve as for a tree to bleed when a branch is cut off. And natural to be thrown into a ferment of agonised working over how your loved one died, what they left undone, what you wish you'd said to them, etc. The first two years are the worst :-) Death of a loved one is a huge shock, and more so when death is sudden. At least, with a terminal disease, there is more time to say the things to each other you really wanted to, and make some adjustment to the idea together. This I found when my first wife died of cancer 20 years ago. Grief is not just one big negative, as people so often assume, because it includes the work of processing the myriad thoughts and feelings and aspects of your relationship with the newly-dead person - an intense review of their life and an adjustment to being without their physical company and communication. This may well parallel what they are going through, in some ways, but I suspect that we on earth take longer to do it. People go through the different stages of grief in their own way - often in a different order, or with some stages repeated - compared with the linear progression outlined in some textbooks. It is easy to get stuck at some phase of grief, sometimes for a long time. We may then find a key or be helped to grieve "rightly". Certainly, though, as I found, the issues are by no means just those of having and losing. I would say don't feel the slightest bit silly about talking to your loved one, in any way you like; take the courage to be what you are and assume that they will take you for what you are, in a journey that is still in some deepest sense one. Talk about them to other people, too. Let no socially-implanted ideas inhibit you from feeling your love towards them, and be open to their closeness and essence as if deep within your heart. I can imagine *you* being influenced by socially-implanted ideas, of course ... :) One thing that theosophical sources offer, is the possibility of meeting our dead loved ones on the inner planes while we sleep. This one is both nice and tantalising, as we generally remember nothing of it. Dreams - take lightly; they can be just subconscious dregs being thrown up while processing, or may symbolise some kind of inner-level contact in an expressive and precious way. When my first wife was terminally ill, we went through some of the stages of grief before her death - shock, etc etc, and that alerted me to the possibility that people can do some of what they're normally said to do after death, before it. There's more of a continuum than we may think. I felt my whole comprehension of theosophy challenged, during the days of my wife's illness. Some people lose their faith at this stage, in whatever religion they have. I felt stripped to the core, seeing with merciless clarity that most of what I "knew" about theosophy was second or third-hand knowledge; how little I knew for myself - how small a space, and how dark, was my own head. (Interesting one, that, for its implication is that my vantage point was in fact different. The soul speaking?) That searing experience has borne a wonderful harvest, however, in a greater ability to empathise with others, and a clear vision of head-knowledge as a set of models of reality. No mushy stuff, Murray >I have one more question (for you and all on this list): > >I have just lost a most precious loved one due to sudden death. I have >read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually hinder their >journey - > > .... > >By the way, I know that people on this list are compassionate enough to >offer me words of condolence, but it is not necessary - besides, I'm one of >those who gets weird at mushy stuff. . .got it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:44:35 -0500 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 13, 1999 >Dallas offers: > >As far as I can determine KUNDALINI has not been related to >sexual or creative action on this the physical gross-matter >plane, unless it has been debased by promiscuity. Well, according to tradition, it IS our evolutionary energy, physically, mentally, and spiritually. When it activates the Root Center, it creates/stirs sexual desire, the physical and lowest expression of evolutionary creativity. It acts on all planes according to which Chakra(s) (Center) it activates. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:04:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Blinds in the Tantras? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BE3FD4.FB3936C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >As far as I know some of the TANTRAS are full of descriptions and >directions - but are they accurate? Are they designed to >obscure, and act as "blinds?" Dallas, the simple answer to your question here is yes to both questions Jerry S. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BE3FD4.FB3936C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>As far as I know some of the TANTRAS are full of descriptions=20 and
>directions - but are they accurate?  Are they designed=20 to
>obscure, and act as "blinds?"
 
Dallas, the simple answer to your question here is yes to
both questions
 
Jerry S.
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01BE3FD4.FB3936C0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 03:22:18 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 20, 1998 Cybercmh@aol.com writes >much of Alan's sympathy >toward the Iraqis is likely rooted in his own experience of WWII. And >sometimes our blindnesses are rooted in *lack* of experience - we blithely >traipse along with a pet theory about something, until real-life experience >blows it out of the water and we are forced to re-think things. It's happened >to me... Good points. as a matter of clarification, my sympathies are directed towards the *people* who are bombed, etc. This does not mean (vide Iraq) that I necessarily support the *leaders* of those who are bombed, or of those who order their bombing. To all who favour bombing *anyone* I would suggest going somewhere where they can hear the whistling noise a bomb makes when it is *directly overhead* and could mean "Bye bye world" for *them* If there is anything to dive under, well, you dive under it. There is no on the spot analysis of the political situation nor the reasons for the bomb. It's a case of survival. My grandfather and I were both, in the armed services, trained to shoot to kill. Both of us also had Red Cross training which could enable us to help those we didn't quite finish off. Crazy, or what? (My father was in a reserved occupation - all he had to do was print!) Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:42:05 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: January 13, 1999 - Bad Boys Bad Alan wrote: >kymsmith@micron.net writes and Bad Alan interjects: >>A man could, by >>this reasoning, cover himself and pretend to be a male to escape beatings! > >What a superb typo - ROFL! Ye are EVIL. I didn't even notice the typo and I re-read my post a couple times as I always strive to be perfect. . .hmm, perhaps I am being used as an instrument by some "superb" being. In all seriousness, Alan, I simply adore your sense of humor. If you really do consider me your friend, when you die you'll will it to me. Remember, I asked first. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 02:36:54 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 13, 1999 Dallas wrote: >There have been some >serious problems: genocide in Africa, in the Balkans, and in >Asia Minor repressive measures taken against the populace are >seen, but are they very serious taken in comparison with the >whole trend ? Whoa! Kym jumps out of her chair and bangs her head on the ceiling. Dallas, the genocide and repressive measures ARE very serious no matter what one wants to compare them with. This is one of the major problems I have with doctrines who look backward, forward, up and down in order to claim human or animal suffering is 'not so bad when we consider so and so.' The agony of a human today is as serious as the agony of a human of the past or the agony of a human in the future. It serves no purpose but to give one an excuse to avert their eyes and energy - or to hope that some superhuman "messengers" will get the job done. The only "messengers" I know of, for sure, are you, me, and other not-so-superhuman folk. The "trend" does not control us, Dallas, we control the "trend." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:09:20 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Katinka Dear Dallas, > For me the idea of philosophy and psychology are to be seen > together. But I believe on examination it will be found that > theosophy adds some dimensions that modern psychology does not > cover. agreed, precisely my point. > The dimension that Theosophy shows is that there is the Higher > Mind which is Manas and Buddhi - or the Wise-mind. In this > regard it speaks of Karmic effects. It asks for instance on the > matter of sex: If the act is performed for procreation, does it > not simultaneously imply the acceptance of responsibility for > progeny, wife, husband and family life to the fullest extent ? OF course. > Then comes the question: should "sex" be performed for any other > reason - like recreation? Does this lessen the karmic > responsibility because we have "birth-control" pills or other > apparatus and procedures to prevent the natural operation of > karmic law ? I do not think it is that easy. The birthcontrol-pills prevent pregnancy. It is clear that that is karmic, like every other action. That does not mean, in my mind that they are therefor 'bad'. > As I understand it, the difference between white and black magic > is the direction of our motives in acting, feeling and thinking. obviously. I think we agree on most points. :-) Katinka > ---------------------- > NHL Leeuwarden > hesse600@tem.nhl.nl > > > > > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: hesse600@tem.nhl.nl > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net > ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:41:00 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Kym-humanism. Dear Kym, On you wrote: > I hestitate to say this, as it smacks of arrogance, but Sufi-philosophy is > a bit more - dare I say it - "sophisticated" than the philosophy of the > Islamists. Muhammed did, in the Koran, speak of the equality of male and > female, but demanded that his own wives remain segregated from full social > interaction. He didn't want other men lusting after "his" wives. . .an > immediate problem arises when a man thinks of another woman as "his." The > Koran also states that it is acceptable to kill Christians and Jews. . > .another idea ripe with permission for those who claim to 'kill for God.' Sounds like you know more about it than I. > You may be right. But it would seem to me that, logically, a woman who is > UNVIELED is more clearly seen as a woman than as a man. A man could, by > this reasoning, cover himself and pretend to be a male to escape beatings! > It is easier to determine a male from a female if they are UNCOVERED rather > than covered. There are physical differences between male and female that > make such determinations possible without the need for veils (well, duh, > Kym). This excuse may be used as a reason to keep women covered, but it > doesn't pass the smell test. Even in the dark of an ally? > >Is it pushy to recognize differences between people? > > Well, in a way, yes. Recognizing 'differences' between people serves as a > means to pass judgment. Humans 'label' people as stupid, sentimental, > immature, smart, wise, good and bad. If humans were to look at people as > being no more or no less than each other, humanity may find itself more > compassionate and forgiving. You mentioned differences in 'intelligence' - > I agree that there are different intelligences, but we consider some > intelligence more important than others when that may not be the case. For > example, a person who is illiterate may not be able to work in any other > place except McDonalds, but he/she may excell in intelligence regarding the > raising of children or raising a garden to feed his/her family and > neighbors. I don't think humanity realizes the IMPORTANCE of having those > who have "different intelligences." Different intelligences are what > maintains balance. The smartest person in the world may be colder than > ice. True, but judging people for being different is a very different mental exercise from just recognising the fact. I have experienced in my life very often the expectation of people that of course we are all the same, with the same motives and idea's and morals as suffocating. > The doctrine of > difference, to me, is the cause of more 'hatred' and fear than any other > doctrine I can think of. It is all about what people do with idea's. That is not the same as the question wether an idea is true or not. > Who can judge who is a Mahatma or a "regular" person? What distinguishes > the two? Even Jesus went ballistic in the temple. . .. How do I know if > you are really a "normal" person named Katinka, or a Mahatma writing and > utilizing cyberspace to further Love and Compassion? Maybe I should just > quit worrying about the differences - and treat you, and all, like they may > just be Mahatmas incognito? good idea, it is like the old saying (I forget the source: hpb, Krishna?) Try to see the divine in everybody. > I agree, it is better to act decently no matter what - and, perhaps, acting > decently for "the good itself" can be considered an ulterior motive. Maybe > acting WITHOUT an ulterior motive is to act for NOTHING at all and that may > not be humanly possible. You've brought up a good point. Krishnamurti seems to think that that is possible, but I am certainly not capable of it (yet?). > Thank you. My ego enjoyed the compliment which proves I still have an ego > and I thought we were supposed to get rid of our egos and now you've just > proven to me I still have one and I have one in abundance. Hmmmm. . .. Reminds me of a sufi story, but I do not remember it well enough to e-mail it to you. But in the same book (essential sufism) there was the comment that we have our lower selves (ego's) to prevent us from becoming arogant. That is of course a paradox because the arogance can only come into being in a personality. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:45:21 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: RE: Theos-World Waiting for the Messenger Dear all, > HPB is the one who stated that every century, towards the end of > that period (the last 25 years) the Great Lodge of Adepts sent a > "messenger" to work with our western civilization (now diffused > around the world). She says this at the end of THE KEY TO > THEOSOPHY and also in one of her MESSAGES TO THE AMERICAN > THEOSOPHISTS. She also attributes this decision to Tson-Ka-pa. > It is supposed to have started in the 13th Cent. > > I have not seem any claims made, nor have there been any > outstanding work, efforts, or revelations. And although I keep > in touch with almost all the Theosophical journals, I have not > seen any claims made there. Would any such claim even be believed? There would have to be an unusual combination of intellect and saintliness before it would be believed in my opinion. Precisely because of this: > However the changes in science, philosophy, psychology, > sociology, ecology and politics around the world for the last 50 > years are remarkable, when compared with earlier times. Some > where the Theosophical influence seems to have been focused in > many places for the general improvement of mankind and attitudes > of life. etc. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:48:30 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World AC & HPB == THE SWASTIKA Jan 14th 1999 The Swastika is a most ancient symbol - adopted and used by the Nazis, true - but also they turned it around so that it runs backward. The original idea was two crossed sticks set afire and when well lit they where whirled clockwise, and the trailing flame left the trailing edges of the fiery cross. Some references in Theosophical literature: See THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY p. 315 (its relations to the Masonic, Jaina, and other crosses) T. Glos. P. 260 (pramantha - fire created by friction), T. Glos. P. 28 290 120, 138 See SD II 29-31, 98-99, 101, 413fn, 556, 585-6, S D I 5, 70, 90-1, 657, HPB Articles (ULT) Vol. 2, p. 240fn "Classification of Principles" THEOSOPHIST April 1887 (ditto) Vol. 2, p. 490 "Cross and Fire" THEOSOPHIST Nov. 1879 Reference to these may give a view that will help. Dallas ============================= -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of Bart > Lidofsky > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 1:49 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World AC & HPB LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote: > > No more than Theosophy was. Hitler was an equal opportunity idea > >twister, and a lot of people were fooled by the early Nazi party. > > That's a new twist. Are you saying that Theosophy supplied the justification > for Hitler's and the Nazi's genocide? Where did you get that from? Or, are > you also in the same group of propagandists as the other Crowley lovers, black > magic justifiers, and HPB detractors? Hitler took concepts from many occult groups, and twisted them based on his concept of the Germanic peoples being the only true humans, and the others of what we term "humanity" are really subhumans, similar to the apes. He twisted noble ideas into horrible and evil mockeries of the originals. Theosophy was one of the sources of those ideas, as was the OTO. > "Universal Brotherhood" and pure "altruism" in word and deed. . . Just the > opposite of what both Hitler and Crowley preached. There were a number of early Nazi supporters in the Theosophical Society, until the Nazi's showed their true colors. > Besides, how could the "V" sign be a substitute for the swastika? I didn't say a substitute; I said it was to COUNTERACT the swastika as a symbol. Bart Lidofsky -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:36:36 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: January 14, 1999 - Grief Murray wrote: >This I found when my first wife died of cancer 20 years ago. Not to dig into your personal life, but you were quite young when your first wife died. That is an awful lot to deal with when someone is just beginning their journey into adulthood. I am assuming your wife was young also, which can seem to make death all the worse. I admire people like you who, having faced great trials, still manage to grow and cultivate their Compassion. Compassion can be a hard thing to hold on to - more so when it is tested very early. >Grief is not just one big negative, as people so often assume, because it >includes the work of processing the myriad thoughts and feelings and >aspects of your relationship with the newly-dead person - an intense review >of their life and an adjustment to being without their physical company and >communication. This may well parallel what they are going through, in some >ways, but I suspect that we on earth take longer to do it. Yes, I have often wondered what the newly-dead experience - whether they grieve, have to adjust, miss their loved ones, etc. In Western society the dead are often portrayed as going merrily into heaven with not a thought of what or who remains behind. It would seem odd if that were true, unless some kind of 'sudden enlightenment' occurs, which doesn't seem quite logical either. >I >can imagine *you* being influenced by socially-implanted ideas, of course >... :) Oh, how I wish that were so! My past years as a Catholic to Christian Fundamentalist has left some residual "poison" which serves to frighten and shake my foundations on occasion. It's hard to remove imprints that have been hammered into you for years and years - only later do you realize the damage done. Now I've swung almost completely to the other side, I think - hopefully, in time, balance will come. >One thing that theosophical sources offer, is the possibility of meeting >our dead loved ones on the inner planes while we sleep. This one is both >nice and tantalising, as we generally remember nothing of it. Dreams - take >lightly; they can be just subconscious dregs being thrown up while >processing, or may symbolise some kind of inner-level contact in an >expressive and precious way. This is very interesting. There have been times, in the past, while grieving, that I have awoken with the feeling that "something" happened - something that helped me, something that comforted me, something that told me all is well. This particular time is fraught with bad dreams - dreams that she's not really dead and is buried alive and suffering, dreams that there are bugs coming in and out of her ears, dreams where I find her under a pile of ashes still alive. Clearly, my mind is struggling to accept this death, but it somehow must. >That searing >experience has borne a wonderful harvest, however, in a greater ability to >empathise with others, and a clear vision of head-knowledge as a set of >models of reality. Yes, it seems everything is questioned at times like this. And I am now filled with a great fear of the future because I keep thinking "I don't want to feel this pain even one more time." I can understand how people 'shut down' - how people isolate themselves. I am a very solitary person as it is, but I look around at the few who I have allowed into my heart of hearts and secretly hope that I will pass on before them. Intellectually, of course I know this is not the 'right' way of thinking and I understand that grief is a process - all this stuff has to be brought forward and dealt with. I know that closing down is not the answer. Grief, for some of us, can be so primal. Sometimes it seems nothing but pure instinct keeps us going - other times, the Light is allowed in. Back and forth, back and forth. God, I hate grief - but it is grief that made the poets. So, as you said, it is not all "negative" - but in the beginning, the negative moments can outnumber the gentler moments. Time will take care of this imbalance, but Time needs to hurry up. Time has the audacity of taking its own sweet time. If I ever come face to face with Time, I shall challenge it to a duel. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:29:52 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: January 13, 1999 - Bad Boys kymsmith@micron.net writes >In all seriousness, Alan, I simply adore your sense of humor. If you >really do consider me your friend, when you die you'll will it to me. >Remember, I asked first. You got it. Be warned, however - some people *don't* get it. Mushily, Alan :0) --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 01:02:43 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: January 14, 1999 - Grief kymsmith@micron.net writes, and quotes Murray >>One thing that theosophical sources offer, is the possibility of meeting >>our dead loved ones on the inner planes while we sleep. This one is both >>nice and tantalising, as we generally remember nothing of it. Dreams - take >>lightly; they can be just subconscious dregs being thrown up while >>processing, or may symbolise some kind of inner-level contact in an >>expressive and precious way. This, in my experience, is not an offering, but a reality - but, as Murray says, generally not remembered. > >This is very interesting. There have been times, in the past, while >grieving, that I have awoken with the feeling that "something" happened - >something that helped me, something that comforted me, something that told >me all is well. This is often a genuine indication that the above has happened. Sometimes, with effort, some small details of the encounter can be recalled. > >This particular time is fraught with bad dreams - dreams that she's not >really dead and is buried alive and suffering, dreams that there are bugs >coming in and out of her ears, dreams where I find her under a pile of >ashes still alive. Clearly, my mind is struggling to accept this death, >but it somehow must. IMHO, these may be dreams by association - you associate the person (perhaps) with the body they formerly occupied, rather than the soul/spirit that you actually knew, loved, and talked with before. Your "bereavee" is, you may be certain, alive and well and somewhere else - and, on occasion, reachable one to one. This, for me, is common experience, and experience I have been extremely grateful to have. As I get older, I am finding that I have more "dead" friends than live ones. Death is a process of transition from this place to the next, about which the books claim to tell us so much and abut which so little can be verified at a personal level. If you can, dear Kym, see if you can reach out, not with your intellectualised thoughts, but with your "mind" - your soul, your inner self - the real you that knows the real her. She is around, but she may also be very busy - aren't we all? Often when we call people on the phone, they are out. But they are still doing something somewhere .... Love with a dash of mush, Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:49:00 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: December 22, 1998 In a message dated 12/23/98 12:01:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, theos- l@list.vnet.net writes: << Everyone likes big questions, as if they are qualified, before they have mastered little questions or habits. >> So true! "If you would become a great spirit, first learn how to be a good animal." Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 01:59:39 -0800 (PST) From: mark notzon Subject: Is there a new energy? ---"Dr. A.M.Bain" wrote: > > mark notzon writes > >Dear Dr. Bain, > > > > I am a new subscriber, and just read the latest > >list of messages---I am interested in the discussion on identity and > >Monads. Is a Monad on one of the seven rays of evolution, or are souls > >only on these rays? > >If Monads are on rays, would this not differentiate monads from one > >another? > > > >Mark > > Dear Mark, > > As I don't subscribe to the seven rays of evolution idea, this is a > question for someone else, I suspect. However, if your last sentence is > in accord with the theory, well yes, it would! > > Alan > --------- > Simply Occult .......... > http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ > E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk > http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: mnotz@yahoo.com > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net > > 17 Jan 98 Dear Dr. Bain: Thank you for your reply on rays and monads. My exposure to theosophy, both conceptually and experientially, comes from studying esoteric Buddhism at a meditation centre in Solo, Central Java, for the past four years. The guru, Ananda Suyono, had subscribed to much, if not all, of Alice Bailey's insights--and as I do not have much access to written material, theosophical or otherwise, it is difficult for me to answer my own questions with a perusal of appropriate literature, as it is not easily available. As the meditation centre has been closed because of the political and economic crises of May and June last year, and because of Suyono's declining health (he is approaching 80.) While I do have a photocopy of the abridged "Secret Doctrine" and several other texts by Besant, Leadbetter, Taimini, et al., I pretty much left to my resources, on the physical plane at least, here in Indonesia, and am glad of the opportunity to communicate via the Internet with those who have similar spiritual inclinations. Another subject: One of the phenomena experienced by most of the "advanced" students at the meditation centre in Solo, had been physical signs of an energy different from either kundalini, or prana (or the "chi" energy). Suyono had called this "space enegry", although I do suspect it is a manifestation of Fohat appropriate for the emerging time cycle, signallying a new phase in the cycle of creation. Have you or anyone you are associated with or may have heard from, ever spoken of a physically experienced energy that is not kundalini or prana? The most common phenomenon of the energy is hearing various pitches of pulsating vibrations coming in from various directions, and felt in corresponding regions of the cranium. The pulsations may occur in formal meditation practice, but also spontaneously at any time of the day. Having a small range of reference other than my connections here in Indonesia, I don't know if such experiences make up any part of the mainstream of theosophical practice today, if at all. Your comments would be welcome. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 08:55:26 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ? Jan 17th 1999 Dear Leon: What you say about Tibetan Buddhist (?) texts etc. is very interesting. There is comparatively little that has been put into English. And also, many, many of the truly been carefully hidden. Those who take it upon themselves to make disclosures (translations, glosses, commentaries) will have to demonstrate by their adherence to the ethics and the "path" of the Mahayana, that they are fit exponents of those texts - usually copies, more or less accurate of the ancient ones. As to "esotericism" and "exotericism" I would say that anything that is "disclosed," whether it be translated into English or not, becomes by its writing or its exposition - to that extent - EXOTERIC. As to the defense of HPB. I am of the vigorous opinion that we, her few friends, and scattered students, ought to feel stung every time some ill-advised and inadequate criticism is publicly leveled at her(and Karmically it comes to our personal attention). I consider it a pressing duty for all who have benefited from HPB to challenge anyone who dares criticize or condemn her in any way. They ought to be asked for sources and proofs - point-blanc. And so far, there have been none that are substantiated. I have consistently done this for years a few answers and those who did were only able to offer secondary or tertiary "sources." The Philosophy of Theosophy has never so far been successfully criticized or attacked philosophically or ethically. This ought to be noted carefully. If we neglect this (her defense), then we to that extent (by our silence) agree to those insults being continued - and they are not necessarily directed at Her, but also at the Masters ! It is, in my esteem, our individual Karma that acts as a "test" - an "occult test", please, to see if we are truly alert and truly grateful to Her and to the Great and ancient Masters of Wisdom to whom we owe all that we have so far become, and for what we have received and profited by. Best wishes, Dallas. -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > LeonMaurer@aol.com > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:42 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: RE: Theos-World Response to Rich In a message dated 1/15/99 11:08:21 AM, Richtay@aol.com writes: ><exoteric?>> > >Yes, Paul, all printed knowledge commonly available cannot be truly said to be >"esoteric." Therefore, all HPB wrote is now "exoteric," even if we may.assume >her source, with the complete teachings of the Wisdom Tradition, remains >"esoteric." Not necessarily. . . The difference between exoteric teaching and esoteric teaching does not depend on whether the ideas presented are published or not. It's the *ideas* themselves that are either esoteric or exoteric. In the case of esoteric ideas, such as those directly presented in the Book of Dzyan, their understanding and application depends on whether the student is advanced enough on the path toward self realization. . . Or, as in the case of "religious canons", whether that knowledge is a second hand interpretation, into a metaphoric representation so that those of lesser understanding can comprehend and apply them.--sometimes, by (exoteric) compulsion impelled by group emulation, or blind faith--rather than by individual (esoteric) self conviction based on individually self devised and self determined study and effort. In the case of the Modern religion of Buddhism of which there are many interpretations of the esoteric teaching that have taken on the forms of dogma, or of ritualized practices (guided or controlled by personal vows)--there is no comparison between the original teachings as esoterically presented to "initiates" by the truly *ancient* religions (which, being closer to the source, had a clearer, esoteric understanding of the nature of reality and the hierarchy of forces and powers)--and their anthropomorphized or physicalized symbolization and ritualization as presented by the later religions, such as so called esoteric (but really exoteric) Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianism, Muslimism, Bahaiaism, Scientism, Materialism, etc. The Tibetan iconography and personifications, therefore, are certainly no more esoteric than all the other religious disciplines, no matter whether given out to the common monks or reserved for the initiated lamas, who, as HPB said, were "mostly ignorant fools". (And, if so, then, many of their students would be equally so, or even more so. Especially, if they had to depend on seconhand and even third hand *interpreted* versions of the original "canons" made by linguists, philologists, or "orientalists".;~). This does not, of course, place any aspersion on the true follower of the Buddha, who through his own efforts (as Gautama did himself) attains Bodhi, or Sophia, or true esoteric knowledge with the wisdom to apply it.) Certainly, Vajrayana may be more or less exoteric than Mahayana or Hinayana. . . But such differences are purely relative, and have little relationship to the really esoteric teaching of Cosmogenesis and Anthropogenesis based on fundamental principles as presented in the "Secret Doctrine". . . That, until understood in all its ramifications by the Adept, remains esoterically secret to the spiritually unawakened Sanghas or Chelas--who can only understand and follow, symbolically or metaphorically, the secondhand exoteric interpretations made by their gurus or teachers. >I would point out that the texts of Tibetan Buddhism, with rare exceptions, >were until 20 years ago, completely non-available to anyone in any Western >language. To this day, copies of the Tibetan canon, even in Tibetan, are >EXTREMELY RARE and 99% untranslated. I guess that makes them esoteric. > More esoteric than HPB's Theosophy, at present. And so what? As said above (and I hope, understood) their publication or not hasn't anything to do with the esotericism or exotericism of the ideas presented. The Tibetan Canon is still a relatively modern teaching as compared to the Book of Dzyan with it's *fundamental* theosophical teachings, or, even as compared to any of the ancient religions represented by the Hebrew's, Egyptian's, Brahman's, Mazdaian's, Mayan's, *cabbalas* or "esoteric teachings". e.g.; The Hebrew Kabbala has been "published" for hundreds, if not thousands, of years based on the original oral teachings of *Cosmogenesis*--with all its numbers and geometrics consistent with the Book of Dzyan and, yet, remains to this day entirely esoteric--while the Bible's Old Testament *Genesis* based on much later interpretations of the teachings of Moses, is entirely exoteric (even in its original written language of Hebrew)--although still earlier than the earliest Buddhistic scriptures which were first written in their native language, Sanskrit, let alone later translated into modern Tibetan and then into even more modern, English. The same can be said of the Brahmanic Vedas, as well as the Bhagavad Gita--as compared to the later Puranas and Upanishads, and all their Pali, Tibetan and English (second and third hand) translations. (Or, could we say, progressive "distortions""). Therefore, publication cannot be a condition of exotericism, nor can it be any assurance of former esotericism--and, especially so, in the case of "translations" from the original language. So, the entire Indian or Tibetan Buddhist Canon, from Hinayana to Vajrayana, can bever be considered "more esoteric" than the Secret Doctrine. > >I strongly doubt that simply being "esoteric" makes something "true." >So let's lay off the one-upmanship and claims to esoteric authority, and >what source is more esoteric, and therefore more important. What would that >prove? HPB stands head and shoulders above every spiritual writer this century >or last. We needn't trip over ourselves in our rush to unsully her reputation. >She and her teachings are beyond our puny attempts to attack or defend. I agree about HPB. But, I beg to differ about esoteric teachings which, as referring to fundamental *ideas*, are always far closer to *Truth* than any later "exoteric" interpretation or translation of those ideas. The only "esoteric authority", after all, is the "correct view" of the truly enlightened being at each stage of his understanding and conviction (of the true nature of "reality")--as his conscious-awareness progresses up the 7 step ladder from matter to spirit. How many later interpretations or translations are made by such highly advanced beings? We might add that HPB (along with her co-writers, M and KH) also stands head and shoulders above every writer of "Religious Canons" used in any exoteric "religion" for at least the past 24 centuries. The only comparable source of esoteric knowledge prior to that time would be the Bhagavad Gita written by Vyasa as part of the ancient Mahabharata which preceded or was contemporary with the Vedas. (We might also include the I-Ching, and the Book of Enoch in this "ancient" catagory). The Book of Dzyan, however, is said to be much earlier than all of these writings and, thereby, much closer to the "primal beginning" or the "lighting up of Manas", as well as to the "time" of the Dhyan Chohan or Adhi Buddha "reflections" (Avatars), or primary "incarnations" on this plane of existence (or in this manifestation of Manu). Therefore, it has far greater "credentials" as being much closer to fundamental truths in its "first hand" presentation in Senzar, as well as its "second hand" translations into Tibetan, Sanskrit and English. Incidentally, when I asked my former initiated Nyingmapa Lama friend (linguist, physicist, esoteric science teacher, and later theosophist) who had access to the books of Vajrayana and Tantric scriptures in the personal collection of the late Panchan Lama, if they contained any reference to the teachings of the fundamental principles and "formulas" of cosmo- and anthropo-genesis as laid out in the Secret Doctrine--he said, "none whatsoever"--although, he did add that they implied these truths to a certain degree in their exoteric symbolizations and allegorizations underlying their ritualizations. LHM -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:21:52 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: A few Quotations from theosophical sources January 17th 1999 Some Quotations from Theosophical sources that might be of interest: The one fundamental law of Occult Science is: "the radical unity of the ultimate essence of each constituent part of compounds in Nature-from Star to mineral Atom, from the highest Dhyan Chohan to the smallest infusoria. And this is to be applied spiritually, intellectually, and physically." SD I 120 [ also see W. Q. Judge. Judge Articles Vol. I p. 103 - REINCARNATION IN ANIMALS ] "Practical Occultism,...is but the lowest form of applied Metaphysics...an occultist...must nit separate either himself or anything else from the rest of creation or non-creation...the moment he distinguishes himself from even a vessel of dishonor, he will not be able to join himself to a vessel of honor. He must think of himself as an infinitesimal something, not even as an individual atom, but as part of the world-atoms as a whole...Everything from spirit to the tiniest particle, is a part of the Whole, at best a link. Break a single link and all passes into annihilation; but this is impossible." HPB TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE p. 138 "...man is a perfect animal, the vehicle of a fully developed MONAD, self-conscious, and deliberately following its own line of progress..." HPB TRANSACTIONS p. 14 "Maya is the perceptive faculty of every Ego which considers itself a Unit separate from, and independent of the One infinite and eternal SAT, or "Be-ness."...not only we ourselves, but the whole visible and invisible universe, are only a temporary part of the one beginningless and endless WHOLE, or that which ever was, is, and will be." HPB Transactions, p. 31-2 "Every living creature, of whatever description, was, is, or will become a human being in one or another Manvantara." HPB TRANSACTIONS, p. 23 :Only the homogeneous, the absolutely purified, unalloyed Spirit, can be re-united to the Deity, or "go to Brahma." HPB TRANSACTIONS, p. 139 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:21:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Why Attack Fellow Theosophists? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BE42C2.30DC86C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [Rich]< I should think that mature Theosophists have=20 >,better things to do with their time than to defend=20 >HPB from imaginary attacks from her own supporters. =20 This is exactly what I have been finding lately. Instead of us all trying to work together to discuss (and finding what may be errors IS discussion) Theosophy, there are two or three who feel the need to flame anyone who disagrees with a single word of Blavatsky. A note to the effect that "I disagree and think that you may be mistaken" would be sufficient, but the emotional charge behind the words indicates to me that there is a lot of projecting of repressed emotions and fears going on here. I am being to think that some on this list are very much afraid that at least some of these "errors" may be right, and that this would level their house of cards, exactly like Christian fundamentalists rail even today against archeologists in spite of a lot of scientific evidence. I have been a Theosophist for over 30 years, and have read and studied a vast amount of material. I am not an enemy of Theosophy. I belong to two TSs and have respect for their respective viewpoints and emphases. I would love for anyone who disagrees with anything I write to just say so and explain why in a friendly manner. I could be wrong. But to attack with emotional invective just makes me think that I must be right. Jerry S. ------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BE42C2.30DC86C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[Rich]< I should think that mature Theosophists have
>,better things to do with their time than to defend
>HPB from imaginary attacks from her own supporters.  =
 
This is exactly what I have been finding lately. Instead
of us all trying to work together to discuss (and finding
what may be errors IS discussion) Theosophy, there
are two or three who feel the need to flame anyone
who disagrees with a single word of Blavatsky. A note
to the effect that "I disagree and think that you may
be mistaken" would be sufficient, but the emotional
charge behind the words indicates to me that there is
a lot of projecting of repressed emotions and fears
going on here. I am being to think that some on this
list are very much afraid that at least some of these
"errors" may be right, and that this would level = their
house of cards, exactly like Christian fundamentalists
rail even today against archeologists in spite of a lot
of scientific evidence.
 
I have been a Theosophist for over 30 years, and have
read and studied a vast amount of material. I am not
an enemy of Theosophy. I belong to two TSs and have
respect for their respective viewpoints and emphases.
I would love for anyone who disagrees with anything I
write to just say so and explain why in a friendly manner.
I could be wrong. But to attack with emotional invective
just makes me think that I must be right.
 
Jerry = S.
------=_NextPart_000_0033_01BE42C2.30DC86C0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 13:07:28 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ? Jan 18th 1999 Dear Jerry: Your notes are read. (and included below for easy reference) We seem to approach things from different angles. I ask for proof. You offer me books (that you don't specifically list) in bookshops that currently criticize HPB -- her life - and her writings. [ Titles and Authors ? ] Please. Let us be specific. Otherwise the matter is again relegated to opinions. And being general, they are inconclusive. As to philosophy, sorry, but any aspect of popular or translated and published "Buddhism" does not stand up against the fundamental doctrines of Theosophy. Again let me say that the sources of such opinions or translations ought to be fully given, and it ought to be stated clearly exactly what doctrines are contradictory, and why. Vague generalities are very inconclusive, and tend to divert the mind of readers from the strict discipline of seeking and proving for themselves. Why deny them that independent privilege ? The reason is plain (to me) : Ancient and Immemorial Theosophy is their source. The "Doctrine of the Eye" does not answer the 'Doctrine of the Hart." (As an example, I refer to what is written (translated) by HPB, she says from the Senzar, in the VOICE OF THE SILENCE - THE TWO PATHS pp. 30-1 and 36-7 in my ULT Edition. I recognize many may not agree with that. However, that does not do away with the "Heart doctrine." As to defence, -- you are free to take your path, and I, mine. But if I see criticism of HPB I will ask for chapter and verse proofs. I consider that a "dharma." Where are yours ? I mean specifics, and real proofs, not generalities, or 2nd and 3rd level opinions ?. Yes, in the past a number of authors have written slandering HPB [ there is ample evidence of this in the exchange of her letters with Mr. A. P. Sinnett - published in a book titled THE LETTERS OF H.P.Blavatsky TO A.P.Sinnett" - Edited by Trevor Barker. Sinnett made himself to write in refutation SOME INCIDENTS IN THE LIFE OF H.P.Blavatsky." Just recently Sylvia Cranston based on documentary evidence. Since then I have seen nothing new issued that has been additional to earlier allegations - settled by source evidence given in that book. Have you ? I would also observe (in my own self-reviewed esteem, of course) that my adherence to "Theosophy" as a philosophy, and my respect for HPB, as the "Messenger" of the Masters of Wisdom, is based on my understanding of Their philosophy. And the "future" that it represents, has, (also in my esteem) nothing to what I can conceive as a "goal" of any kind, for myself. I am responsible for what I think, write and say. Naturally, under karma, I will reap what consequences there are to reap. I have said this before: If we are all in innermost "Essence" "immortals," then any "goals" we may mentally set for ourselves this incarnation, are temporary. If, however, we set (in general) the concept of continual study, verification, and application - sharing with others what we discover - so that e may all benefit, -- then that is what I hope to be able to do, now and in the future. You, and anyone else, are always free to disagree in the idea that our World is one of the great Schools of Egoic progression - where the mind of man, independent and free, -- can choose and pursue its own self-chosen "Path," and self-chosen "goals." I equate these with the ethics that emerge from the practice of "Wisdomism," however named. And to this I add that I am a very humble "searcher for Truth." I do not claim any particular standing, but I do question. And, when I see those who evidently know far more than I do attacked I protest (as I have your statements) and ask for that precision which you ought to advance from the first (in my esteem) if you desire to be entirely credible. I am strongly of the opinion that we all owe respect and even reverence to those great Instructors (from whom, many, if not all our current religions an philosophies are derived). Hence I approve and endorse the idea of UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD which is the "First Object" of the Theosophical Society - the present-day representative of the immemorial THEOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT. Best wishes, Dallas =========================== ----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of Jerry > Schueler > Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 5:51 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World RE: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ? >I consider it a pressing duty for all who have benefited from HPB >to challenge anyone who dares criticize or condemn her in any >way. > Dallas, although this may be good-intentioned, it does poor service to HPB, and she would be the first to say so. A little of the criticism is deserved. I have yet to see anyone on this list "condemn" her in any way. >They ought to be asked for sources and proofs - point-blanc. And >so far, there have been none that are substantiated. I have >consistently done this for years a few answers and those who did >were only able to offer secondary or tertiary "sources." > This, as you well know is false. Both Rich and I have "proved" beyond anyone's doubt that her Tibetan Buddhism was a bit weak in some areas and wrong in a few others. If quoting sources isn't proof, then nothing can be and you are like an ostrich with its head in the sand seeing only your own images of reality (which I trust is not the case). >The Philosophy of Theosophy has never so far been successfully >criticized or attacked philosophically or ethically. This ought >to be noted carefully. > Here again your are so wrong as to sound almost silly. Go to your nearest bookstore or library and read some of the books published against her. They may not change your viewpoint, but they certainly are successful in the public's eyes. Why do you think that the TS membership is so low (far less than 1% of the public after over 100 years). Another example, closer to my own background is Mary Baker Eddy, who lombasted Theosophy almost as nastily as HPB lombasted Christian Science. Ask any Christian Scientist and they will tell you that Eddy's criticisms are "successful." >If we neglect this (her defense), then we to that extent (by our >silence) agree to those insults being continued - and they are >not necessarily directed at Her, but also at the Masters ! > So far, your "defense" has done about as much good as my criticisms have done. On the whole, I like and respect her works very much. However, when I study other religions and philosophies and compare them against her work I occassionally find a mistake in her work. I posted two glaring and obvious errors in the Inner Group Teachings, for example, and received back not a single word from anyone on this list. Those interested obviously checked it out, discovered I was right, and then just ignored it. Rich and I have showed that she was in error about the Red Caps and probably about the Dugpas, and except for name calling and emotional eruptions no real defense was offered, nor could it be. This is how you and other "fundamentalists" handle real criticism. >It is, in my esteem, our individual Karma that acts as a "test" - >an "occult test", please, to see if we are truly alert and truly >grateful to Her and to the Great and ancient Masters of Wisdom to >whom we owe all that we have so far become, and for what we have >received and profited by. > >Best wishes, > >Dallas. You apparently believe that if you stick by Blavatsky in spite of obvious and ligitamite criticism, the Masters will come to you with thanks and praise for your loyalty and steadfastness. Perhaps the real "test" is to see if we know how to think for ourselves? Jerry S. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 03:20:33 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Is there a new energy? mark notzon writes >> >Dear Dr. Bain, >> > >> > I am a new subscriber, and just read the latest >> >list of messages---I am interested in the discussion on identity and >> >Monads. Dear Mark, I assume you have found me/us through my web site below. There is a link to the Theosophical University Press on the site, where many original texts may be found. Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:07:29 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Why Attack Fellow Theosophists? Jerry Schueler writes >I have been a Theosophist for over 30 years, and have >read and studied a vast amount of material. I am not >an enemy of Theosophy. I belong to two TSs and have >respect for their respective viewpoints and emphases. >I would love for anyone who disagrees with anything I >write to just say so and explain why in a friendly manner. >I could be wrong. But to attack with emotional invective >just makes me think that I must be right. Well said. I have been a theosophist, albeit perhaps of a different colour - but what's wrong with that? - for over 40 years. Someone posted an item recently to the effect that nothing HPB had said had been proved wrong. I disagreed and pointed, by way of example, to an article by R.A.Gilbert on my web site. There was no response whatsoever. I have not personally received emotional invective in respect of my views, but I do receive on a regular basis long articles in one or more of my personal e-mail boxes which are also posted to this list. I have taken to posting them back to the sender, as they are nothing more nor less than spam. I, for one, do not need to receive "quotes from theosophical sources" - most of which contain quite basic material which I can look up from my bookshelf whenever I choose. Posting them to the list is a fair and legitimate use of the facility, but "mail-bombing" lists of individual subscribers is not. So there! Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:45:33 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Theos-World RE: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ? W. Dallas TenBroeck writes (to Jerry, I think): >As to defence, -- you are free to take your path, and I, mine. >But if I see criticism of HPB I will ask for chapter and verse >proofs. I consider that a "dharma." When quoting chapter and verse it is a very simple matter, rather in the manner of Christians of different theological perspectives, to use such quotes rather like weapons, with the combatants hurling quotes at each other by way of "proof" of this or that view. We are indeed all free to take our individual paths, and this allows, I would have thought - and do - a simple opinion to be expressed along the lines of "what HPB, HPC or HPD says about this or that [with citation perhaps] does not, in my long and varied *experience,* make sense." We could all, perhaps, publish our experiences in print, and then give chapter and verse from our own writings to refute this or that claim - but what would be the point? When we begin to share our *experience,* then perhaps we are doing something useful and beneficial both for others and ourselves. I note, Dallas, that in your many quotes from HPB you dignify her sources by capitalising words such as "masters," and even "their." Are these people gods, that they should have their identities, like Jesus, so designated? In the Barker edition of "The Mahatma Letters to A.P.Sinnett" (on my bookshelf) their letter number 10 states that they themselves do not do this sort of thing, and actively disapprove of it. I - and maybe others, especially newcomers to this and other lists - have often wondered why these particular putative mahatmas are the only ones to be singled out for such special praise. A known historical and much loved Mahatma Gandhi (for example) unlike his theosophical counterparts, is never cited as a source for any kind of wisdom on this list, yet his memory and teaching is still revered and honoured by millions of people of his own country, as well as in the world at large. Blavatsky, in her writings, also refers to the many Rishis that have graced the esoteric past, and why not? But what mention do we see of another rishi from more recent times, who in his own way turned much western thinking on its head? I refer to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (better known for his association with the pop group The Beatles than his philosophy in the eyes of the general public). He was (and I think still is - I have no report of his demise) a highly educated Hindu who sat at the feet of his own master, the Shankaracharya of the Northern Himalayas. He also wrote and had published (by Penguin Books in the UK) a commentary of the first seven chapters of the "Gita" which I would commend to any serious student. In my own time, I have seen and studied teachings of this man's guru that were taken down verbatim from his own lips and translated into private papers in English in the early 1960s. This is the same source as is claimed for so much of the theosophy of HPB and others, and the stream still flows. Theosophy is as much of a continuing present as it is of a 19th century past. Above text copyright Alan Bain, 18/1/99. Having staked my claim, others will be able to cite my writing as a "proof" text if they wish. But let's get real, shall we? Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:57:38 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Puzzled I realised, after responding to a recent posting, that Jerry had quoted Rich - but I have not seen the original post from Rich on this list. If there is, as I suspect, some cross-posting going on, but only in part, it will be very confusing for newcomers and possibly other subscribers. Perhaps John could look into this, if he has time? John? Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 02:16:33 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 18, 1999 Dallas (?) wrote: >>I consider it a pressing duty for all who have benefited from >HPB >>to challenge anyone who dares criticize or condemn her in any >>way. "Dares?" Of course one must "dare" (I just love that!) to challenge philosophical/religious/theosophical teachings. It is required! To do anything less is to make a mockery of the thinking mind. I am taken aback that a Theosophist of today would even utter such a thing - but why am I? HPB had a robust vicious streak when it came to people who "dared" challenge her - very, very unseemly for someone who claimed to have special insight in areas such as Compassion. Then again, maybe she was simply tired of the "Mahatmas" making lame and rather sexist remarks about her to her male counterparts. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:54:51 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 16, 1999 Jan 19th Dear Kym: I did not mean to play down in any way the horrors of the genocide situation or for that matter any of the horrors perpetrated by the "strong" against the "weak." Sorry if I seemed to imply that. I was only observing that the general trend towards the protection of the weak, the ecology, was an outstanding example of a greater regard for others than had hitherto historically been manifest. Yes, 1000 time yes, it is we who control the trend. Thanks, Dal From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:54:54 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 16, 1999 January 19th 1999 Dear Katinka: Thanks for the response. As to "sex," I think it is quite a serious matter, and the fact that we may be able to stop conception does not fully remove (I think) the responsibility of husband and wife as concerns actual, or even potential children. Consider another aspect: Under Karma men and women come together and make families, and by doing so they offer incarnation and the shelter of a home to such returning Egos as Karma might bring to them. These days some do still regard marriage as a serious matter, although there is a trend among some to have other views. How good, pleasant or dangerous they are I have no idea about defining them. I do however have a very strong sense of caution. I think that often marriages are made on the basis of mutual attraction, etc... but those that are really successful are those where in addition to LOVE there is a sound basis of continuing friendship. And in such cases there is an additional bond of great importance to the continued success of marriage. As I see it, Theosophy indicates that the Karma of father, mother and child draws together the bonds of reunion from previous lives. It is like a three-way agreement. If by a physical act incarnation is denied to an Ego with whom we have unknown, but close bonds, what would the Karma be for the "potential parents," and the "potential child?" I do not have a ready answer, but this idea has made me very thoughtful. You have also asked about the 100 year effort attributed in Theosophical literature to the Lodge of Adepts (started with Tsong-ka-pa in the 14th Cent) If you are interested I have a note (a list actually) which takes note of the sequence of personages who worked in the "West" under this mandate and served as "predecessors" of HPB. This list includes also references to Theosophical sources from which additional information can be had by direct reference to them. I would have to send it to you directly as an "attachment" if you want to see it and use it. Best wishes, Dallas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:35:12 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 18, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net writes >Dallas (?) wrote: > >>>I consider it a pressing duty for all who have benefited from >>HPB >>>to challenge anyone who dares criticize or condemn her in any >>>way. > >"Dares?" Of course one must "dare" (I just love that!) to challenge >philosophical/religious/theosophical teachings. It is required! Bless you, my child. God [Ms]. --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:40:08 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 19, 1999 Ms. God (Alan to mere humans) wrote: >Bless you, my child. I work only to please you, O Great One. Your humble servant, Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:54:50 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 19, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net writes >Ms. God (Alan to mere humans) wrote: > >>Bless you, my child. > >I work only to please you, O Great One. > > >Your humble servant, > >Kym > And I you, O modest one. [Thinks - "Curses, I've been rumbled!"] --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:52:30 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Where did everyone go? ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Alan: What's the story? Are there only 3 people on Theo-l? What happened to Jerry, Sy, Cosimano, John from Montana? Did they all decide they had better things to do? -Annie --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 01:14:33 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Where did everyone go? In a message dated 99-01-20 22:07:46 EST, you write: << What's the story? Are there only 3 people on Theo-l? What happened to Jerry, Sy, Cosimano, John from Montana? Did they all decide they had better things to do? -Annie >> I'm still around, just waiting for something interesting to happen. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:02:35 -0600 From: "Julius Catral" Subject: New I'm new. Can somebody bring me up to speed. Expectations, inputs, procedure, discussion topics etc... Cheers, Julius From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:49:39 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Where did everyone go? I think everyone is subscribed. May be as a coincidence, theyhave not found time to respond with msgs. That is the case with me. mkr Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > ------- Forwarded message follows ------- > Alan: > > What's the story? Are there only > 3 people on Theo-l? What happened > to Jerry, Sy, Cosimano, John from > Montana? Did they all decide they > had better things to do? > > -Annie From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 10:49:04 -0600 From: Julius Catral Subject: RE: Where did everyone go? How do we proceed now >-----Original Message----- >From: M K Ramadoss [SMTP:ramadoss@eden.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 3:50 PM >To: Theosophy Study List >Subject: Re: Where did everyone go? > >I think everyone is subscribed. May be as a coincidence, theyhave not >found time to respond with msgs. That is the case with me. > >mkr > >Dr. A.M.Bain wrote: > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:36:18 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Astrology question Jan 21st 1999 Dear Bee: According to what I understand from what HPB has taught in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, and the SECRET DOCTRINE individual Karma plays the most important deciding factor in reincarnation. Being free minds we are able to choose and thus change our Karma (as a balance) all the time, every moment. Our whole life is like (this is only an analogy) a "Karmic ledger." That which remains as "unfinished business," is, so to say, every day as in every life, carried over to the next day, or life. As Karma is to be treated (by definition (Second Fundamental of the SD, vol. 1, Pp, 15-17) as inflexible (because fair and just to all who are affected), the "balance" (as maintained by Karmic law) is always impersonally exact. Just like when we were going to school each day in our early years, we pick up at each new life (after training a new "personality (mask)," beginning with babyhood and youth) where we left off, with the abilities or disabilities we always carried around with us as our 'inner' environment: mind, memories, hopes, and feelings. So too, with our many incarnations, as they proceed from a vast past, through our "today," and on into the future. The Real SELF within (Atma-Buddhi-Higher Manas) uses a fresh tool (the newly formed 'Personality'), (which is aggregated from those elements of the old one which was abandoned at death) and which, in the meantime, were dispersed throughout Nature. Nose old/new aggregates ( Skandhas, or "life-atoms") are the "bearers of our past karma." And the reason for that is that it is they who were shaped by our use of them in the past life. So, when they "return" to us, to help shape our "new Personality," they bring that old impression which we imposed on them, and, according as to whether we used them well or ill, so they will assist or annoy and delay us now. HPB indicates that the time spent in the "after-life" interlude largely depends on the nature of the unresolved nobleness, and altruistic actions, and thoughts we had, especially those we could not give full expression to. The incarnated ego (Lower Manas) is in communion with its HIGHER SELF (ATMA) and the HIGHER EGO (Buddhi + Higher-Manas) - also called "the immortal EGO," resides in that (we might call it meditative) condition for a time commensurate with the quality of its living in the life just ended. So that time is variable and not a fixed one - at least it is only fixed by our karma as adjusted to the karma of all other things we have affected in the past. Nature is said to mathematically exact in this. HPB also indicates that for the average person of today the stay between incarnations is about 10 to 15 centuries, although in the case of little children, young people and those whose lives are cut short by war, accident, or murder, the rapidity of incarnation is increased - she sets those limits from -- a few years, to up to 10,000 years (in the case of the very pure and just and have much to meditate on in Devachan). As to the accuracy of the astrological setting, I can only say that the astronomical positions of planets, etc. are like the hands of a vast "clock." They were called the "hands of the clock of Karma." I would never, without some kind of reasonable and verifiable basis, state positively that the star of a life's setting and the star of a new incarnation are identical, unless that was a fact. But can it be a fact when time every proceeds and we as a whole, pas through changing circumstances (in space and time) all the time ? Again, if this is a fact, then the logic of it would be plain to all of us, and ought to be given (or found) in Theosophical doctrines. If we look at the sweep of time, then we see that it runs in spiraling cycles - analogies, certainly - but never a repeat - as time and space have changed. The only unchangeable things are those based in and on the ONE SPIRIT. And, as I see it, the innumerable Spiritual "Rays" which inform all the various evolving beings (including Man's Self-conscious SELF) in the Universe do not change because of that ONE BASIS. The forms and personalities change, the stars ever move forward as the Universe spirals along everywhere, but the ONE CENTER, and the impelling Centers of a Spiritual kind, remain ONE. Hence: we have the concept of the immortality of the Pilgrims, and, the fact of a constructive and practical brotherhood as its application. And, to me, this is supported by the act that we may pass through many states of consciousness and never lose our own "I-ness." ( "The STAR of the Soul" will be found mentioned in the SECRET DOCTRINE between pages 570-575 in Vol. 1. It makes very interesting reading.) best wishes, Dallas. =============================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 13:36:23 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: FW: SHANGRILA == Report from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC =Jan 21st 1999 Dear Friends: An interesting Report from NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC is sent for you to read s received from them. Dallas ======================================== -----Original Message----- > From: Carol Stroud [mailto:cstroud@ngs.org] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 6:08 AM > To: dalval@nwc.net > Subject: January 19, 1999 Wm. Dallas Tenbroeck dalval@nwc.net Thank you for contacting the National Geographic Society. The following is a news release on Tsangpo Falls. We are preparing an article and television film on the expedition, but it will be quite some time before either is ready. For release at noon EST Thursday, Jan. 7, 1999 WASHINGTON-Explorers who have returned from the last unexplored section of the Tsangpo Gorge in southern Tibet report discovery of a 100-foot-high waterfall that had been the source of myth and speculation for more than a century. The waterfall was discovered in a legendary unexplored five-mile gap in the Upper Tsangpo Gorge, the world's deepest canyon, which arches around the easternmost Himalaya Mountains. The waterfall had been legend since the 19th century and was last sought in 1924 by British botanist Francis Kingdon-Ward, who concluded it probably did not exist. After descending the extremely steep, rugged slope that leads down to the falls and then rappelling the last 80 feet, the expedition reached the waterfall the afternoon of Nov. 8. The team used a laser range-finder and clinometer to determine its height -- 100 to 115 feet -- which they believe to be the largest on a major Himalayan river. They named it Hidden Falls. The expedition, sponsored by the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Council, was led by American writer and scholar Ian Baker and included Ken Storm Jr. of Minneapolis, Hamid Sardar of Cambridge, Mass., and several local assistants. Videographer Bryan Harvey accompanied the team for National Geographic Television. "It's very exciting to find the waterfall of myth to be real," said Baker, who led seven previous expeditions in the Tsangpo Gorge region. "People assumed the story of a great falls on the Tsangpo was just romance. But it's here and larger than we had ever imagined Team member Ken Storm, on his fifth expedition to the region, had been a doubter. "I didn't believe in the waterfall; I thought reports from the past were right-that it probably didn't exist," he said. "It shows that even if you're told something isn't there, you have to keep looking." The Tsangpo River leaves the Tibetan Plateau and passes between two great Himalayan peaks more than 23,000 feet high, finally emerging in India as the mighty Brahmaputra River. The unexplored section of the gorge has long inspired both Tibetan pilgrims and Western armchair explorers. The region lies downstream from Rainbow Falls, the farthest point reached by Kingdon-Ward nearly 75 years ago, in what had been considered an impenetrable wilderness. Only in the last few years has China allowed explorers to enter the area. A team attempting to kayak the length of the Tsangpo Gorge met with tragedy in November when one of its members was pulled into a series of rapids and was lost. Earlier expeditions helped Baker and others establish that the Tsangpo's innermost gorge is less an inaccessible maze of cliffs and jungle than one of the world's best kept geographical secrets. For hundreds of years the Monpa hunters who inhabit the lower Tsangpo valley have guarded the area from outsiders. For them it is both a place of pilgrimage and a sacred hunting ground; in spring and fall the hunters descend precipitous trails into the deepest section of the gorge, performing Buddhist rites as they pursue their prey-a rare, horned animal called the takin that is considered sacred by local Tibetans. Monpa hunters guided the team into the innermost gorge in pursuit of an answer to the century-old riddle of the falls' existence. 12/98 Sincerely, C.L. Stroud Research Correspondence From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:53:32 -0600 From: "A. Safron" Subject: Re: New I'm old (dearly 90's) and recently returned. I'd appreciate the same. Ann Safron Bermingham ---------- > From: Julius Catral > To: Theosophy Study List > Subject: New > Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 6:00 PM > > I'm new. Can somebody bring me up to speed. Expectations, inputs, > procedure, discussion topics etc... > > Cheers, > > Julius > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: safron@concentric.net > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:10:24 EST From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: New In a message dated 99-01-21 15:09:40 EST, you write: << I'm old (dearly 90's) and recently returned. I'd appreciate the same. Ann Safron Bermingham >> Hell, none of us are getting younger! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:07:45 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: New Julius Catral writes >I'm new. Can somebody bring me up to speed. Expectations, inputs, >procedure, discussion topics etc... > >Cheers, > >Julius Wanted: Any input, discussion topics! It's an open list, say what you like, ask all the useful *and* the awkward questions. Tell the list about your own interests and enthusiasms. There's a wealth of talent around here, honest. We need stimulating! WELCOME! Alan --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:09:08 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: New A. Safron writes >I'm old (dearly 90's) and recently returned. I'd >appreciate the same. Dear Annie, I just love the "dearly 90s" - sums it all up, really. Alan :0) --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:59:01 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: DEFENCE OF HPB == Esoteric or Exoteric ? Dear all, > I note, Dallas, that in your many quotes from HPB you dignify her > sources by capitalising words such as "masters," and even "their." Are > these people gods, that they should have their identities, like Jesus, so > designated? In the Barker edition of "The Mahatma Letters to > A.P.Sinnett" (on my bookshelf) their letter number 10 states that they > themselves do not do this sort of thing, and actively disapprove of it. > > Blavatsky, in her writings, also refers to the many Rishis that have > graced the esoteric past, and why not? amen! Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:17:23 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: DEFENCE OF HPB == Dear Dallas and company, > Where are yours ? I mean specifics, and real proofs, not > generalities, or 2nd and 3rd level opinions ?. Yes, in the past > a number of authors have written slandering HPB [ there is ample > evidence of this in the exchange of her letters with Mr. A. P. > Sinnett - published in a book titled THE LETTERS OF H.P.Blavatsky > TO A.P.Sinnett" - Edited by Trevor Barker. Sinnett made himself > to write in refutation SOME INCIDENTS IN THE LIFE OF > H.P.Blavatsky." Just recently Sylvia Cranston based on > documentary evidence. Since then I have seen nothing new issued > that has been additional to earlier allegations - settled by > source evidence given in that book. Have you ? Would Paul Johnson please respond to this? Paul's book on the myth of the Mahatma's is (as far as I am aware) more recent than Silvia Cranston's book. It is based on historical evidence, but does not touch the relevance of H.P.B. SO if this is a discussion on that, I have said nothing. Jerry's quotes were for the most part (or at least as I read them) in agreement with H.P.B.. Only H.P.B. was (as usual :~) )more direct and drastic in her opinions. But it is clear (to me) that H.P.B. probably had political and other reasons for secrecy and even outright lies (qoute K.H.: IF you want no lies, ask no questions- I do not have the literal quote, but the idea is clear). That may be difficult for us to imagine, who come from reletively free and peacefull countries, but in India, last century, free thought which smelled of anything un-English, was dangerous. Now Paul can elaborate far better on this subject than I can and perhaps he will? hope so... Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:24:58 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: re: predecessors of HPB Dear Dallas, you wrote: > You have also asked about the 100 year effort attributed in > Theosophical literature to the Lodge of Adepts (started with > Tsong-ka-pa in the 14th Cent) did I? > If you are interested I have a note (a list actually) which takes > note of the sequence of personages who worked in the "West" under > this mandate and served as "predecessors" of HPB. This list > includes also references to Theosophical sources from which > additional information can be had by direct reference to them. I > would have to send it to you directly as an "attachment" if you > want to see it and use it. yes I am interested in that. I would very much appriciate it. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:36:32 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Rich on Devachan Jan 22 1999 Dallas offers: The question of where and when DEVACHAN (or Sukhavati after-death state) was first used caused me to turn to the early pages of THEOSOPHIST and to the valuable collection of HPB's writings in the series BLAVATSKY - "COLLECTED WRITINGS." For simplicity I will use BCW to designate this series. October 1881, THEOSOPHIST, pp 12-15 "STRAY THOUGHTS ON DEATH AND SATAN" == SEE "Blavatsky Collected Works," Vol. 3, p 295. On pages 287 and 291 we are told that the Mahatma M sent notes on the margin of a copy of THEOSOPHIST to Mr. Sinnett (now preserved at the British Museum) and on p. 295 the word ""Deva-Chan" is apparently first used by him. July 1882 in MAHATMA LETTERS [ 1993 Chronological Edition, Manila, p. 189 shows this was apparently used in July 1882 "Devachan". The word is frequently used in letters from the Mahatmas to Mr. Sinnett, as a reference to the Index will show. November 1882, THEOSOPHIST, Vol. 4, pp 28-30; [ BCW Vol. 4, p 256 ] "DEATH AND IMMORTALITY." BCW Vol. 4, p. 252 footnote, indicates that Mahatma KH contributed some comments which were printed in THEOSOPHIST therein. An explanation as to why some of the teachings, later given, were not included in ISIS UNVEILED is also to be found there. DEVACHAN and KAMA-LOKA are both mentioned in the body of this contribution (p. 276). June 1883, THEOSOPHIST SUPPLEMENT, Vol. 4, p. 1-3, "A LEVY OF ARMS AGAINST THEOSOPHY" -- "Devachan" is mentioned in the reprint to be found in BCW Vol. 4, p. 548 footnote. July 1883, THEOSOPHIST Vol. 4, p. 252-3; "KARMA" -- "Devachan" is mentioned in reprint to be found in BCW, Vol. 4, p. 572 This information show me that the philological origin of the word is not important but that the ideas that it represents are. It was used by those who gave Theosophy to us for some distinct reason. In the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, HPB gives precise reasons for its usage. As it would appear from its nature, Theosophy is the root and basis of all the world's religions and philosophies, it would hence be logical for it to employ any word or combination of words that embody ideas and facts for us to study. Dallas. ============================== -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of Jerry > Schueler > Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 1:15 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Rich on Devachan >Rich, > >You're material on Devachan is interesting, especially since Jerry S. several >months ago claimed that HPB had "invented" the word. > >Daniel The cause for my claim of invention is the well known statements+ of G de P and others who wrote that deva is from the Sanskrit and chan is from Tibetan and that she glued the two together. As you well know, it was only very recently (just a few months ago) that I discovered that it is actually a corrupt spelling of a legitimate Tibetan word--one that I have finally at long last found in a recent book. I also acknowledged publically on this list that I had been wrong. This is, I think, a very good example of just how useful this list can be. Jerry S. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 20:04:27 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: A theory Here is my take on Clinton. While he is basically a politician and some may not agree with his personal behavior, from what I have seen, his policies have been fundamentally helpful to many ordinary people. I also believe that since his fundamental motivation seems to be helping the people of the US, with all the investigations and the activities inside the beltway (Washington DC) and all the attacks from Conservatives and Religious Right, the public approval continues to be high. I think when your heart is in the right place and are trying to do good to the masses, natural public support makes nothing stick to him. We can expect to see more of the same. When you are doing the right think, helping common man, woman and child, I think there is godsend public support. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 00:26:07 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 22, 1999 Doss wrote: >When you are doing the right think, helping common man, woman and child, I >think there is godsend public support. Despite Clinton's personal imperfections (part of being human, I suppose), there appears, at the core of Clinton's heart, a real desire to help those who have been ignored for so long in America's history. I believe that the "masses" (a bad word, even in Theosophical literature) recognize Clinton's purpose. However, it is also expected that when one is "doing the right thing" there comes added trouble - not ALL people appreciate Clinton's attempts at helping the poor, minorities, women, gays and lesbians, etc., through changes in federal laws. Many powerful people do not wish to share or lose the power they have enjoyed for quite a few years - it is natural that they will fight to hold on to it. Hence, the acceptance and applause of a prosecutorial investigation that, if it had happened to them, they would have never tolerated. . .. While watching the current Senate hearings, I find myself especially distressed at how petty and malicious the prosecutors have been. They have misquoted, misrepresented, and often, blatantly lied, about what is really in the depositions and evidence. I wish more people were watching the hearings - what the media and some politicians have many people (even those who support him) believing about what Clinton did is simply not true. But, I believe, that although we can drive out, crush, or kill a individual, we cannot do the same to a person's good works and thoughts. This belief, at times, seems the only thing that sustains me. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 06:55:58 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 22, 1999 == capitalization Jan 23rd 1999 Dear Katinka, If I capitalize words it is a sign of my respect and that is all. I choose to do that to emphasize my own attitude. Dallas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:21:05 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 22, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net writes >While watching the current Senate hearings, I find myself especially >distressed at how petty and malicious the prosecutors have been. They have >misquoted, misrepresented, and often, blatantly lied, about what is really >in the depositions and evidence. People watch in the strangest places and times - like me at 2.30am, when BBC News 24 gives a half-hour resume of the day's doings, with plenty of actual coverage from the floor of the house. What seems to me most appalling is that even though the Republicans know there is virtually no chance of kicking Bill out, they continue pressing on with what is clearly a farce, at enormous expense, while the job of running the country (which is what the Congress and the Senate should be giving their attention to) is being left in the hands of the defendant! >From this side of the water, your "leaders" seem totally crazy. irresponsible, and will be writing a chapter in history very different from the one they are claiming to write. "They have misquoted, misrepresented, and often, blatantly lied." Sadly, it reminds me all to much of the behaviour of the TS in England when I was still a member. Alan :0( --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:05:55 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: "Spiritual Immortal Man" Jan 23rd 1999 The Secret Doctrine offers on the subject of human evolution: "...there exists in Nature a triple evolutionary scheme...or rather three separate schemes of evolution which in our system are inextricably intertwined at every point. These are the Monadic (or spiritual), the intellectual, and the physical evolutions. These three are the finite aspects or the reflections on the field of Cosmic Illusion of ATMA, the seventh, the ONE REALITY... Each of these three systems has its own laws, and is ruled and guided by different sets of the highest Dhyanis or "Logoi." Each is represented in the constitution of man, the Microcosm of the great Macrocosm; and it is the union of these three streams in him which makes him the complex being he now is. "Nature," the physical evolutionary Power, could never evolve intelligence unaided-she can only create "senseless forms,"... The "Lunar Monads" cannot progress, for they have not yet had sufficient touch with the forms created by "Nature" to allow of their accumulating experiences through its means. It is the Manasa-Dhyanis who fill the gap, and they represent the evolutionary power of Intelligence and Mind, the link between "Spirit" and "Matter"-in this [4th] Round..." SD I 181-182 [ see also SD I 174-5 footnote, 182-187 for more details ] "...to complete the septenary man, to add to his three lower principles [ physical body, astral body, Prana ] and cement them with the spiritual Monad...two connecting principles are needed: Manas [Mind] and Kama [passions and desires]. This requires a living Spiritual Fire...the true esoteric meaning is that most of them were destined to incarnate as the Egos of the forthcoming crop of Mankind. The human Ego is neither Atman nor Buddhi, but the higher Manas: the intellectual fruition and the efflorescence of the intellectual self-conscious Egotism-in the higher spiritual sense. The ancient works refer to it as Karana Sarira [ the "causal body"]on the plane of the Sutratma [the eternal "thread-soul"] which is the golden thread on which, like beads, the various personalities of the this higher Ego are strung...these Beings were returning Nirvanees from preceding Maha-Manvantaras-ages of incalculable duration." SD II 79-80 [ see also SD II 93-96, 242-246, 255fn, ] "...Spiritual fire...is the higher Self, the spiritual Ego or that which is eternally reincarnating under the influence of its lower personal Selves, changing with every re-birth, full of Tanha or desire to live...on this [physical] plane, the higher (Spiritual) Nature [is]...in bondage to the lower. Unless the Ego takes refuge in the Atman, the ALL-SPIRIT, and merges entirely into the essence thereof, the personal Ego may goad it to the bitter end... That which propels towards and forces evolution, i.e., compels the growth and development of Man towards perfection, is (a) the MONAD, or that which acts in it, unconsciously, through a force inherent in itself; and (b) the lower astral body or the personal Self...unless the higher Self or EGO gravitates towards its Sun-the Monad [Atma-Buddhi]-the lower Ego or personal Self will have the upper hand in every case. For it is this Ego, with its fierce Selfishness and animal desire to live a Senseless life (Tanha), which is the "maker of the Tabernacle" as the Buddha calls it in Dhammapada..." SD II 109-110 "We now come to an important point with regard to the double evolution of the human race. The Sons of Wisdom, or the spiritual Dhyanis, had become "intellectual" through their contact with matter, because they had already reached, during previous cycles of incarnation, that degree of intellect which enabled them to become independent and self-conscious entities on this plane of matter. They were reborn only by reason of Karmic effects. They entered those who were "ready," and became the Arhats, or sages, alluded to above. This needs explanation. It does not mean that Monads entered forms in which other Monads already were. They were "Essences," "Intelligences," and conscious spirits; entities seeking to become still more conscious by uniting with more developed matter. Their essence was too pure to be distinct from the universal essence; but their "Egos," or Manas (since they are called Manasaputras, born of "Mahat," or Brahma) had to pass through earthly human experiences to become all wise, and to be able to start on the returning ascending cycle. The Monads are not discrete principles, limited or conditioned, but rays from that one universal absolute Principle. The entrance into a dark room through the same aperture of one ray of sunlight following another will not constitute two rays, but one ray intensified. It is not in the course of natural law that man should become a perfect septenary being, before the seventh race in the seventh Round. Yet he has all these principles latent in him from his birth." SD II 167 [ see also SD I 572-574 which speaks of the "Star of the Soul." ] "What was the religion of the Third and Fourth Races [ of this our 4th round]?...endowed with divine powers and feeling in himself his inner God, each felt he was a Man-God in his nature, though an animal in his physical Self. The struggle between the two began from the very day they tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Wisdom; a struggle for life between the spiritual and the psychic, the psychic and the physical. Those who conquered the lower principles by obtaining mastery over the body, joined the "Sons of Light." Those who fell victims to their lower natures, became the slaves of Matter...becoming the "sons of Darkness." They had fallen in the battle of mortal life with Life immortal, and all those so fallen became the seed of the future generations of Atlanteans (sorcerers) ...the evolution of Spirit into matter could never have been achieved; nor would it have received its first impulse, had not the bright Spirits sacrificed their own respective super-ethereal essences to animate the man of clay, by endowing each of his inner principles with a portion, or rather, a reflection of that essence." SD II 272-273 "...all those Monads of men who had reached the highest point of Merit and Karma in the preceding Manvantara-owed their psychic and rational natures [ Kama and Manas] to divine Beings hypostasing into their fifth principles [Mind]...The divine man dwelt in the animal..." SD II 272 ========================= The above selections are offered as a brief sketch, with many details and links omitted (although they are all to be found by studying the SECRET DOCTRINE), of the intricate paths of evolution we have been through incarnation after incarnation and are pursuing at present. Comments and questions will be interesting to read and study together. Dallas ======================= From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:11:17 -0600 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Clinton Impeachment kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > Doss wrote: > > >When you are doing the right think, helping common man, woman and child, I > >think there is godsend public support. > > Despite Clinton's personal imperfections (part of being human, I suppose), > there appears, at the core of Clinton's heart, a real desire to help those > who have been ignored for so long in America's history. I believe that the > "masses" (a bad word, even in Theosophical literature) recognize Clinton's > purpose. > Thanks, at least one person sees the point I was trying to make. It does not matter what any literature says; after all it is one person's opinion and yours and mine are as good as any other. > However, it is also expected that when one is "doing the right thing" there > comes added trouble - not ALL people appreciate Clinton's attempts at > helping the poor, minorities, women, gays and lesbians, etc., through > changes in federal laws. Many powerful people do not wish to share or lose > the power they have enjoyed for quite a few years - it is natural that they > will fight to hold on to it. Hence, the acceptance and applause of a > prosecutorial investigation that, if it had happened to them, they would > have never tolerated. . .. It is normal that most cannot deal with change. They want status quo maintained. We have seen people killed in the name of god, religion, country, ideas, etc. what we are seeing is politics pure and simple. The Republicans are taking refuge under rule of law and constitution and want to get rid of him. If they do, we will have to see what happens at the next election. > While watching the current Senate hearings, I find myself especially > distressed at how petty and malicious the prosecutors have been. They have > misquoted, misrepresented, and often, blatantly lied, about what is really > in the depositions and evidence. After all, all of them are lawyers; what else do you expect. No wonder that the citizens have such a low opinion of politicians and lawyers. > I wish more people were watching the > hearings - what the media and some politicians have many people (even those > who support him) believing about what Clinton did is simply not true. > > But, I believe, that although we can drive out, crush, or kill a > individual, we cannot do the same to a person's good works and thoughts. > This belief, at times, seems the only thing that sustains me. > > Kym What goes comes around. You are right. Coming to the question of "masses", while all that is contained in SD and other classics are dazzling details, from day one, it was made clear that the purpose of TS was to arouse the interest of everyone in the welfare of the suffering humanity, not to teach the "occult" teachings and tell everyone the anthropogenesis and cosmogenesis. All one needs is to read the history. When Lord Buddha saw the sorrow, pain and suffering of humanity, was so moved that He wanted to find the cause and means to eliminate. While He as an very high Initiate had first hand knowledge of the occult secrets, when a lay man asked Him about the origin of the Universe, he gave the following story: He said when you are facing with a man who is injured and bleeding from an arrow which has pierced him, you are seized with the issue of how to relieve the problem and save him from dying and not to delve into theories about where the arrow came from, what kind of arrow it is, how it was shot, who shot it etc. So keeping the focus on the well being of the "masses" is essential for the good of everyone, including ourselves. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 01:04:40 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Clinton Impeachment M K Ramadoss writes >So keeping the focus on the well being of the "masses" is essential for the >good of everyone, including ourselves. We agree. The Masses [signed] From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 03:08:50 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: Re: Registration request Plasticman writes >Dear Sir/Madam, > >I am curently pursuing a correspondence course in Theosophy as taught by >the Pasadena Theosophy group.I am also a member of Blavatsky Net.I wish >to be registered as a member of Theosophy International.Thank you! >Yours truly, >Malcolm Leonard Thank you! it shall be done. (Copy to mailing lists) Alan Bain --------- Simply Occult .......... http://www.nellie2.demon.co.uk/ E-mail: TI@nellie2.demon.co.uk http://list.vnet.net/?enter=ti-l From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:27:14 +0000 From: "Dr. A.M.Bain" Subject: test test From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 00:18:42 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 23, 1999 Alan wrote: >From this side of the water, your "leaders" seem totally crazy. >irresponsible, and will be writing a chapter in history very different from >the one they are claiming to write. 'Tis embarrassing, at least for this American, that other countries are fully aware of the current state of madness gripping America. It's not like our reputation is all that sterling anyway - thinking of the Religious Right, raw capitalism, materialism, English-Only laws, lack of health care, guns, guns, and more guns. . .. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 05:54:15 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 24, 1999 Jan 25th 1999 Dear Christine: With reference to your inquiry into the matter of Law or Laws of Nature, I wonder if you have either H P Blavatsky's KEY TO THEOSOPHY or W Q Judge's THE OCEAN OF THEOSOPHY available. The reason I ask this is because in both these books the nature of the universal law of Karma, and it operation is traced. If you do not have these I will try to find a way to send you or indicate to you how you can see the material. Do let me know. For instance: if you can access http://www.blavatsky.net you will find in their Menu hyperlinks to lists of articles by HPB and WQJ and in both lists you can access their articles on KARMA. Those are worth reading for a succinct answer. Best wishes, Dallas. ============================================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:34:02 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 07, 1999 In a message dated 1/8/99 12:01:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, Dallas writes: << If Law, as a universal method of relations exists in the abstract, then its manifestation, it would seem to me, would be inherent in the living situation of all beings. >> I was very much interested in your discussion on laws, and I wonder whether you have written any other essays, articles or books? Would like to study this topic some more. It seems to provide some answers to my sometimes immature, plaintive ("why me" or "why that") responses to what are most likely the (dare I say it: impersonal) consequences of these laws in action, rather than some cruel plot of the Universe to make beings suffer. Christine Hanson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:57:20 EST From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 08, 1999 In a message dated 1/9/99 12:01:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, Kym writes: << I have read that grieving for one who has passed over can actually hinder their journey - that the grief of those 'left behind' can serve as a kind of tie to the earthly realm for the deceased one. >> Kym, I don't have any information from the "other side," or from authorities, but I do believe that a grief period is a healthy thing, and a necessary phase for the eventual healing of the living person. You are missing what you had, not trying to stand in the way. Letting go seems to be a gradual, organic process, a process of adjustment, disintegration and reintegration, and doesn't happen overnight - like a tree that has a branch cut off and grows a new one - and I think it can be more complete if allowed to run its natural course, than if one stifles the feelings - they linger under the surface much longer that way and can wreak havoc in negative ways if not allowed to "breathe". I'm speaking from the experience of having lost my father rather suddenly. Although I was profoundly aggrieved and shocked, I also received a very strong message that he was "in the right place" and all was well with the world. So I believe that my feelings of loss and of missing my father did not hinder him. They were simply a measure of how much I love him. Hope this helps. Christine Hanson From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:36:38 -0500 From: jim meier Subject: Moon chart, 1999 all times are given for USA, Eastern Standard Time unless otherwise noted= . 1999 Day Moon Sign EST GMT/ Day Jan 1 Full Cap 9:51pm 2:51a/2 = = = Jan 17 New Cap 10:47am 3:47p/17 Jan 31 Full# Aqu 11:08am 4:08p/31 Feb 16 New# Aqu 1:40am 6:40a/16 Mar 2 Full Pisc 1:59am 6:59a/2 Mar 17 New Pisc 1:49pm 6:49p/17 Mar 31 Full Ari 5:50pm 10:50p/= 31 Apr 15 New Ari 11:23pm 4:23a/16 Apr 30 Full Tau 9:56am 2:56p/30= May 15 New Tau 7:06am 12:06p/15 May 30 Full Gem 1:41am 6:41a/30 Jun 13 New Gem 2:04pm 7:04p/13 Jun 28 Full Can 4:38pm 9:38p/2= 8 Jul 12 New Can 9:25pm 2:25a/13= = = Jul 28 Full# Leo 6:26am 11:26a/2= 8 Aug 11 New# Leo 6:10am 11:10a/11 = = Aug 26 Full Vir 6:49pm = 11:49p/26 Sept 9 New Vir 5:03pm 10:03p/9= = Sept 25 Full Lib 5:52am = 10:52a/25 Oct 9 New Lib 6:35am 11:35a= /9 = Oct 24 Full Sco 4:03pm = 9:03p/24 Nov 7 New Sco 10:54pm 3:54a/8 Nov 23 Full Sag 2:05am 7:05a/= 23 Dec 7 New Sag 5:33pm 10:33p/7 Dec 22 Full Cap 12:32pm 5:32p/22= notes: When and where Daylight Savings Time is in use, add one hour to the times above. (#) indicates eclipses of the sun at the new moon and of the moon at the full moon. = The full moons of the three Spiritual Festivals will be observed worldwid= e on the following days: EASTER on March 31; WESAK on April 30; and CHRIST'S FESTIVAL and WORLD INVOCATION DAY on May 29. = From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:01:53 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Practical theosophy: The TWO SELVES in the Bhagavad Gita Jan 27th 1999 In the 6th chapter of the B. GITA Krishna starts by telling Arjuna that the ultimate results of the intellectual and analytical school ( Sankhya) and the devotional practical school (Yoga) are the same when combined with wisdom and experience: "...a renouncer of action and a devotee of right action...No one without having preciously renounced all intentions can be devoted." [ GITA Ch. 6, pp. 45-6 ULT Edn.) Detachment from anticipated results is to be replaced by an impersonal weighing of that which is "right to be done" under the circumstances - something which any right-minded individual would do - taking universal ethics and morality into account. In other words, putting our personal preferences aside and doing "the right thing." Not easy ! But if we were to take the attitude that all the time our actions are open to everyone to look into, we would perhaps act more impartially, impersonally and honestly with everyone. Meditation can be attained when "he hath renounced all intentions and is devoid of attachment to action in regard to objects of sense..." On p. 47 he then proceeds to show Arjuna how the 2 "Self's" in man interact. "He should raise the [lower, embodied] self by the Self [the imperishable Spirit/Soul], let him not suffer the Self to be lowered; for Self {the Higher] is the friend of self [the lower], and, in like manner, self [the lower] is its own enemy." The play on the Higher and the Lower Self is explained by HPB in the KEY TO THEOSOPHY in those pages where she details the qualities and potentials of the Higher and the Lower Mind (Manas). [KEY, pp. 171-186] The three lines of evolution (SD I 181) are to be seen active in us. The physical body gives residence to the embodied Mind [the lower] and the Higher Mind acts as its Tutor/Mentor - through intuition and the "voice of Conscience." The rest of that chapter from then on is Krishna's explanation of this philosophical system. That is how I see it. Dallas. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 05:41:07 -0500 From: jim meier Subject: re: Moon Chart 1999 Every year -- no matter how I space it -- this list takes the moon chart and re-writes it with full line justification so that it wraps over and i= s hard to read. Oh well. For those who can't make it out or just want an original copy, it is available at no charge from Lucis Trust 120 Wall St, 24th fl New York, NY 10005 Those who are interested in participating in the monthly group meditation= s at the time of the full and new moons or in learning more of the methods = of meditation can request additional information from the same address, including these brochures: (also at no charge) - Energy Follows Thought - The Science of Meditation <=3D my personal favorite There is also an audio tape (cassette) on Beginning Meditation. Jim From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:33:59 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject... Jan 28th Dear Rafaella: The "cloning" is a physiological process and so far involves plants and animals, but has not been successful (that I have heard) in regard to humans. In any case the Theosophical view is (as I get it from HPB's KEY TO THEOSOPHY) the Spirit/Soul in man (the Real HUMAN) is a reincarnating being. It is immortal. Karma determines the place and family of its new reincarnation. Unless there is an agreement in terms of karma between the HIGHER EGOS OF THE PARENTS (FATHER AND MOTHER) AND THE INCOMING EGO of that being who will be their "child," there can be no incarnation and consequently no physical body ought to be expected to mature. However this is only my speculation, based on the ideas of the IMMORTALITY of the REAL EGO, and the accuracy of KARMA which operates uniformly and fairly for all beings. Cloning is a physical and physiological and astral thing, and does not seem to have the needed roots insofar as humans are concerned in the psycho-spiritual planes. There may be exceptions to this but there would be special rules in such cases. Hints are given in special cases as for instance in SD II 275fn and SD II 281. Best wishes, Dallas ===================== -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > Raffaella > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 2:02 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject... In a discussion of the soul and reincarnation last night, I had brought up a question - Cloning. Would a clone have a soul, and how would karma and reincarnation work with them? I'd like to throw out to you some questions and theories I've come up with, and only ask that your replies not be to the rightness or wrongness of the act of cloning. That is a whole discussion in itself. The point is, regardless of morals it will happen, and how do we handle it? To start, it was put forth that no, it would not have a soul. But I must question this - Nature abhors a void. From simply taking a scoop of water out of a pool, to the endless ingress of matter to a black hole, nature in some way or another fills a void. And think on this, if I've read aright we believe that all matter, down to the tiniest piece is a part of the great universal light. This being, even though not born conventionally, will be created of the same matter as everything else. How then could it not be a part of that universal light? Now, I think we can agree that the creators, right or wrong, will have to deal with whatever karma they have earned. But what of the child, and those around it? I'll start with a question for our group, in particular. If we take the tack that it has no soul, who among us would look a child in the face and tell it that it is a soul-less abomination, that it should never have been born? What karma do we create for those within our group if we teach such ideas? As for the child, I have many questions. Would it pick up part of the spirit and karma of the one who donated the cells? Or would it follow current thought, that each person has it's own karma? And if it has it's own karma, which of these would it be - A totally new spirit, taking it's very first steps on the karmic circles? Or, with all the trials, and most certainly prejudice against the method of it's birth, would it be the reincarnation of a soul that had built up so much karmic debt that it would need to work through such adversity to move on? Another point raised was that when you get a transplant, or blood transfusion you get some of the essence of that donor. In natural conception, the child shares the lifeblood of it's mother, and some of that essence, as well as that from the seed of the father. What of a child without either of those influences? Would there be some deficiency of soul? Or, since the donor had these influences, and the clone is a copy, would it be similar to the donor, a copy of a whole soul? One thing I'm interested in learning is what studies are out there of children born in test-tubes? This may shed at least some light on the question of parental influence. As for me, I still have too many questions to come to any solid conclusions yet. I think you can guess that I am leaning towards them having some sort of soul, but still I am not sure of this. Morally right? Wrong? Soul or None? I find amidst all this I do have one firm belief. So long as we treat them as we would any other creature on this planet, with compassion, we cannot go far wrong. -Angie -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:37:30 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 28, 1999 Dallas wrote: >The "cloning" is a physiological process and so far involves >plants and animals, but has not been successful (that I have >heard) in regard to humans. Uh, pardon me, but TWINS are clones of each other! The medical community has acknowledged that the process of cloning in the lab is the same (minus the uterus) as what occurs in the body of the mother of identical twins. And, it would seem that BOTH twins have souls. . .so why in the world wouldn't a clone have one? Can a soul only enter a body if and only if the body comes out of a vagina? Cloning has been successful in humans - and I think the soul can enter a body whether it came from a tube or a womb. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:40:37 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 28, 1999 Jim wrote: >Every year -- no matter how I space it -- this list takes the moon chart >and re-writes it with full line justification so that it wraps over and i= >s >hard to read. Oh well. Oh well??! I went to all that trouble to line the numbers back up so I could read them (and they still didn't make sense) and all you can say is "oh well?" Humans. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:17:52 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: RE: Theos-World Rich on Devachan Dear Dallas, > As it would appear from its nature, Theosophy is the root and > basis of all the world's religions and philosophies. I am getting a bit tired of your way of presenting it as though Blavatsky's theosophy is identical with the Theosophy that is the root of all religions. Blavatsky's theosophy was her version of that religion and she was the first to suggest we study other sourses as well. By the way I am not denying the usefullness of her literature. I am a big fan and very happy with the three books from her Collected Writings I just bought (7,8,9). Very usefull material. Perhaps to head of a more diverse source-using on this list, I have a quote from the Hadith (=words wich are reported to be from Mohammed, but not in the Koran). My source is "Essential SUfism" by James Fadigan and Robert Frager.: "Whenever God loves a devotee, He subjects him to ordeals. Should he endure patiently, God singles him out; should he be content, God purifies him." THis thought is echoed by H.P.B. in her articles on Practical Occultism, later bundled in the small booklet of that name. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:06:07 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: RE: Theos-World A few questions on cloning.. Dear Dallas and Rafaella and Angie, Dallas wrote: > The "cloning" is a physiological process and so far involves > plants and animals, but has not been successful (that I have > heard) in regard to humans. This is partly because even for the famous sheep Dolly it was neccessary to implant hundreds of embrios befor one would come to term. So immense numbers of women have to be subjected to the trauma of the baby in their wombes dying, before one healthy child can be born. I have a friend involved in biochemistry and he says that there are wealthy people willing to pay good money for people trying to clone them, but so far it has not been tried. > In any case the Theosophical view is (as I get it from HPB's KEY > TO THEOSOPHY) the Spirit/Soul in man (the Real HUMAN) is a > reincarnating being. It is immortal. Karma determines the place > and family of its new reincarnation. > > Unless there is an agreement in terms of karma between the HIGHER > EGOS OF THE PARENTS (FATHER AND MOTHER) AND THE INCOMING EGO of > that being who will be their "child," there can be no incarnation > and consequently no physical body ought to be expected to mature. > However this is only my speculation, based on the ideas of the > IMMORTALITY of the REAL EGO, and the accuracy of KARMA which > operates uniformly and fairly for all beings. > Cloning is a physical and physiological and astral thing, and > does not seem to have the needed roots insofar as humans are > concerned in the psycho-spiritual planes. I think that since sheep can be reincarnated healthily, why can't humans? I do not see how karma should prevent this experiment. Also because from the S.D. it seems that in the early days of humanity *we* were all clones from our parents. Angie wrote: > we believe that all matter, down to the tiniest piece is > a part of the great > universal light. This being, even though not born > conventionally, will be > created of the same matter as everything else. How then could it > not be a part > of that universal light? exactly my thougt: it will be part of the universal light or spirit and in the same way that twins are each *created* or formed with a distinct soul, the new baby will be infused with its own personality. That is what I think. How could it not? It will grow up in very different circomstances from the parent, have a different astrological sign etc. How could it be an abonimation. If it is born healthily, than that is good and certainly not its fault: so it can not be punished for that. > Now, I think we can agree that the creators, right or wrong, will > have to deal > with whatever karma they have earned. But what of the child, and > those around > it? I'll start with a question for our group, in particular. If > we take the > tack that it has no soul, who among us would look a child in the > face and tell > it that it is a soul-less abomination, that it should never have > been born? > What karma do we create for those within our group if we teach > such ideas? no good can come from teaching such idea's in my oppinion... > As for the child, I have many questions. Would it pick up part of the spirit and karma of the one who donated the cells? Or would it follow current though, that each person has it's own karma? And if it has it's own karma, which of these would it be - A totally new spirit, taking it's very first steps on the karmic circles? Or, with all the trials, and most certainly prejudice against the method of it's birth, would it be the reincarnation of a soul that had built up so much karmic debt that it would need to work through such adversity to move on?> The child would have as much chance of a full karmic history as all of us, in my oppinion. Since it need not mention the way it was born, I don't think the social stigma need be so bad. > Another point raised was that when you get a transplant, or blood transfusion you get some of the essence of that donor. In natural conception, the child shares the lifeblood of it's mother, and some of that essence, as well as that from the seed of the father. What of a child without either of those influences? Would there be some deficiency of soul? Or, since the donor had these influences, and the clone is a copy, would it be similar to the donor, a copy of a whole soul? One thing I'm interested in learning is what studies are out there of children born in test-tubes? > This sounds like a misconception to me. No children are born out of testtubes. Children are sometimes conceived in testtubes, but for the full development of the baby it will have to be inplanted in a womb very soon after conception. So I should think that there are nine months of maternal influence even in those cases (minus a few days) > I find amidst all this I do have one firm belief. So long as we treat them as we would any other creature on this planet, with compassion, we cannot go far wrong.> ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:11:28 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: cloning Dear Kym > Uh, pardon me, but TWINS are clones of each other! The medical community > has acknowledged that the process of cloning in the lab is the same (minus > the uterus) as what occurs in the body of the mother of identical twins. > > And, it would seem that BOTH twins have souls. . .so why in the world > wouldn't a clone have one? Can a soul only enter a body if and only if the > body comes out of a vagina? > agreed. > Cloning has been successful in humans - and I think the soul can enter a > body whether it came from a tube or a womb This is a misconception. No child was yet born whithout coming from a mother's womb. The laboratories can recreate the coming together of a sperma-cell and the egg. They cannot recreate all the complex functions of the womb. Katinka (I also sent a longer e-mail on the subject, but this misconception asked also for a smaller reply in my oppinion-education in the States really needs improvement) ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:00:38 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Trans-Persnal Psychology -- its coverage == Antiquity of Man -- Modern evidence needed Jan 29th Dear Peter: Sorry I put in the wrong name - but anyway there were many to read, and thank you for the correction. I believe I understand your point in regard to the approach of TRANS-PERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY. If, by chance your are familiar with HPB's definitions of the active and perceptive principle (MANAS - Mind), in humans (as found in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY) I have found that it serves to resolve the differences (not always conflicts) with the theories and their constant modifications of modern psychology, as new evidence is disclosed. As I understand it, the observation of reflexive responses (in animals, and in mankind of all ages), and the generation of spontaneous ideas and queries have to be reconciled. I say this broadly. In Theosophical terms, emotional feelings (KAMA) closely interacts with the mind (thought, memory, anticipation, logic, will, etc...)faculty - these are very closely allied in us all at this stage of our evolution. Therefore they are not easily separated. (Theosophy calls us Kama-Manasic beings - emotions and mind conjoined). Mind can be seen as a separate faculty acting as directed by our WILL, impersonally, as for instance in scientific investigation and the observation of facts, engineering, physics, astronomy, etc... And, especially in mathematics. There its action is dispassionate and the search for universal and fully verifiable truths is constant. When one inquires into the MOTIVE for such research, one finds that the "desire to know" moves the individual. This "desire to know" may be actuated by various motives. From pure desire for facts and knowledge, or the personal desire to prove a special point and eliminate any facts that are opposed to pre-judged conclusions. There is a whole range of motives that are of an ethical/moral quality in this discipline of the self/mind. It also invokes persistency or its lack. Accuracy, or its lack. Then when one finds that theories have already been evolved to account for observed facts, and that they have become generally accepted, one is confronted with the problem of discrepancies in current observations. This needs to be accounted for, and, at this point it becomes a matter of ethical and moral decision. Are the new facts to be broadcast? Should one broadcast one's unpopular findings, or should one bow to the opinions, long established and used, by the greater majority of one's "peers." The threat to one's standing and credibility introduces a moral/ethical decision here. The integration of morality and ethics with psychological observation, and the use of the mental faculty, is what Theosophy speaks of extensively. In fact (I would say) it is the missing link in our modern psychological sciences. The concept that man is an immortal being is ESSENCE as a Spirit/Soul and that he lives many lives on Earth as personalities (masks of the Real Inner Man) is something entirely (or almost entirely) lacking in current psychology, as that is relegated to "belief" and to "religion." And if those are independently studied, they are found to be in most cases irrational. But in the search for TRUTH and verity, these factors become all-important for true and general progress. WE have at present one very difficult situation. We start with material evidence that pertains strictly to this plane of effects, forms and movements. These we can observe. But what actuates them? What are the inner and unseen CAUSES that actuate them - causes that reside (broadly) in the emotional and rational aspects of man's faculties ? Now if Man is essentially rational and lives in an emotional environment the conflict in terms of behavior and choice becomes clearer (I think.) But, are we not all of us in exactly that situation ? And is not the mind admittedly superior in its power to the emotions ? does it not see clearer and anticipate results as a spectrum of "possibilities," - so that it may choose what it considers to be optimum in benefit for itself? At what point does the intense focus of self-preservation (in the future) and selfishness become a more universalized one, as the selfish-Self (Personality-Kama-Manas) sees that acting in terms of the general ethical/moral "good" (Karmic Law and Buddhi-Manas) serves (in the long run) to preserve its integrity and continued existence ? So long as this is set aside we have troubles in establishing an overview of all relationships in these areas, and as sciences or points of view (as beliefs or faiths) they remain disjointed. The ancients (as the modern Theosophists) integrated religion with science and philosophy. Generally, they placed the ethical/moral decision making as foremost in consideration and as the one factory that serves to assemble an integrated way of living. Is these musings are correct, or of any use ? Dallas =========================== -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of Peter > Merriott > Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 5:50 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: Trans-Persnal Psychology -- its coverage == Antiquity of Man -- Modern evidence needed, please Dear Dallas, Actually it was me, Peter, who made that post. > Many thanks - my brush with "Trans-personal Psychology" had only > showed that they dealt more with the "psychic" [ Kama and Astral > side ]. The really "SPIRITUAL" [ HIGHER-MANAS and BUDDHI ] > remained to be identified. I'm sure that side of it also exists. There is research being carried out on 'altered states of consciousness' of many kinds which includes mystical, transcendent, meditative and 'psychic' experiences. "However, the larger emphasis is on the spiritual nature of the individual and humanity, and how this encompasses our spiritual, psychological and physical nature. The major thrust in Transpersonal Psychology is thus more along the lines of how we can use this understanding to gain a better knowledge of human development, for example - developmental tasks in relation to overall psycho-spiritual growth; interventions in psychological 'illnes'(so called); working in psychotherapeutic settings with people traumatised by life events, experiencing depression, hopelessness and despair, existential crises etc. > It is my opinion that the impersonal application of LAW - fair, > just, impersonal and enormously sensitive - to all beings as to > man's psyche was yet to be discussed scientifically > (impartially) - as this has often been regarded as the field of > ethics, morals and therefore "religious." > > Am I correct still on that ? I'm not sure, to be honest. I think there is a strong desire to understand the funadamental principles (laws) upon which the human constitution and life is based and the ethical issues that follow on from those 'priciples'. But, what I have noticed is that while many individuals talk 'privately' about reincarnation and the Law of Karma there is very little discussed on these topics in academic / clinical forums and debates. As a theosphist I see that as a great ommision. I also recognise that it is early days yet for transpersonal psychology and in order to be establised and gain a firm foothold in the world of Psychology it may well have to leave some things 'on the side' for the time being. Best wishes, Peter -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:00:28 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject...What is the SOUL = the MIND Jan 29th 1999 Dear Nancy: Essentially, in theosophy, and according to one good book, really worth reading carefully, THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by H.P.Blavatsky, The SOUL in man is equated with the Greek definition of NOUS - the thinking principle. Since thinking involves the whole of man's perceptions, no aspect of life, memory or anticipation is devoid of this faculty IN ACTION. It is the power to perceive, It is the Self-identifying feeling of Ego-ship. Descartes said is succinctly: "I think, therefore I am." Does this help ? Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > N.Malcom > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 12:31 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject... How are you definning "soul"? I thought a soul was simply a sheath. ??? Nancy ---------- > From: Raffaella > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject... > Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:01 AM > > In a discussion of the soul and reincarnation last night, I had brought up a > question - Cloning. Would a clone have a soul, and how would karma and > reincarnation work with them? I'd like to throw out to you some questions and > theories I've come up with, and only ask that your replies not be to the > rightness or wrongness of the act of cloning. That is a whole discussion in > itself. The point is, regardless of morals it will happen, and how do we > handle it? > > To start, it was put forth that no, it would not have a soul. But I must > question this - Nature abhors a void. From simply taking a scoop of water out > of a pool, to the endless ingress of matter to a black hole, nature in some > way or another fills a void. And think on this, if I've read aright we > believe that all matter, down to the tiniest piece is a part of the great > universal light. This being, even though not born conventionally, will be > created of the same matter as everything else. How then could it not be a part > of that universal light? > > Now, I think we can agree that the creators, right or wrong, will have to deal > with whatever karma they have earned. But what of the child, and those around > it? I'll start with a question for our group, in particular. If we take the > tack that it has no soul, who among us would look a child in the face and tell > it that it is a soul-less abomination, that it should never have been born? > What karma do we create for those within our group if we teach such ideas? > > As for the child, I have many questions. Would it pick up part of the spirit > and karma of the one who donated the cells? Or would it follow current > thought, that each person has it's own karma? And if it has it's own karma, > which of these would it be - A totally new spirit, taking it's very first > steps on the karmic circles? Or, with all the trials, and most certainly > prejudice against the method of it's birth, would it be the reincarnation of a > soul that had built up so much karmic debt that it would need to work through > such adversity to move on? > > Another point raised was that when you get a transplant, or blood transfusion > you get some of the essence of that donor. In natural conception, the child > shares the lifeblood of it's mother, and some of that essence, as well as that > from the seed of the father. What of a child without either of those > influences? Would there be some deficiency of soul? Or, since the donor had > these influences, and the clone is a copy, would it be similar to the donor, a > copy of a whole soul? One thing I'm interested in learning is what studies > are out there of children born in test-tubes? This may shed at least some > light on the question of parental influence. > > As for me, I still have too many questions to come to any solid conclusions > yet. I think you can guess that I am leaning towards them having some sort of > soul, but still I am not sure of this. Morally right? Wrong? Soul or None? I > find amidst all this I do have one firm belief. So long as we treat them as > we would any other creature on this planet, with compassion, we cannot go far wrong. > > -Angie > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:49:57 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 29, 1999 Katinka wrote: >> [Kym wrote} Cloning has been successful in humans - and I think the soul can enter a >> body whether it came from a tube or a womb >[Katinka wrote] This is a misconception. No child was yet born whithout >coming from a mother's womb. The laboratories can recreate >the coming together of a sperma-cell and the egg. They >cannot recreate all the complex functions of the womb. I believe you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. There are children who have been conceived in utero and children who have been conceived in a test tube. Although this is a definite distinction, it matters not, I believe to the "soul." Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had written "I think the soul can enter a body whether it was CONCEIVED in a womb or a tube." I never meant to imply that there was such a thing as a human being matured for nine months in a test tube - as this has not yet occurred. But if we are going to insist on being precise - your paragraph is also misleading - you claimed that children come from a "mother's womb." This is not so. There are many couples who have a woman implanted with the wife's egg and husband's sperm and this woman carries the baby to term for them - this woman is NOT the "mother." And besides, back on subject, even if and when it is possible for a person to spend the entire gestation period in an artifical womb or in a womb not belonging to the biological mother - again, I do not see the soul being hindered in any way. >(I also sent a longer e-mail on the subject, but >this misconception asked also for a smaller reply in my >oppinion-education in the States really needs improvement) This statement smacks of arrogance and stereotyping. Dallas writes from India and some things he says I think are quacky, but I try not to assume that ALL those from India are quacky. I'm not sure where you write from (Netherlands?), but I will try not assume that ALL those from your country are arrogant. I write from the US, but please do not chalk up my literary or thinking errors as representative of ALL people from the US. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:39:47 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 29, 1999 Cloning, Twins and the Mind/Soul in incarnation. Jan 30th Dear Kym: Cloning and Identical or Fraternal Twins. As I understand it, the process of incarnation, Theosophically, involves specially the incoming Ego (Soul, Mind, Perceiver) meets its old "karma" (unfinished business) through the agency of the Egos of the father and mother of the new birth. One may produce a physiological union of the gametes in a lab, but I doubt if that can be carried to "term" without something resembling the facilities and process of the living womb. Again, why should the intermixing of the gametes invoke a "soul/mind" to use a potential "body/form" which will not have any future as a living human ? Theosophically several factors, so far unfathomed, though perhaps being considered by science are in play in incarnation. The idea that all is based solely on physiology is defective, as I understand it. And I have been following for many years, since I was in College. The matter of the ethics process (which Theosophy gives emphasis to, through the doctrine and action of Karma) is lacking in the average scientific view, as I see it. Where and how does self-identity arise ? What happens between baby-hood and adult-hood ? Is man just a more intelligent animal ? If so what is the nature of that intelligence, and where does the I-ness come from that we study ? Doe this help ? Dallas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:37:30 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 28, 1999 Dallas wrote: >The "cloning" is a physiological process and so far involves >plants and animals, but has not been successful (that I have >heard) in regard to humans. Uh, pardon me, but TWINS are clones of each other! The medical community has acknowledged that the process of cloning in the lab is the same (minus the uterus) as what occurs in the body of the mother of identical twins. And, it would seem that BOTH twins have souls. . .so why in the world wouldn't a clone have one? Can a soul only enter a body if and only if the body comes out of a vagina? Cloning has been successful in humans - and I think the soul can enter a body whether it came from a tube or a womb. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:40:37 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 28, 1999 Jim wrote: >Every year -- no matter how I space it -- this list takes the moon chart >and re-writes it with full line justification so that it wraps over and i= >s >hard to read. Oh well. Oh well??! I went to all that trouble to line the numbers back up so I could read them (and they still didn't make sense) and all you can say is "oh well?" Humans. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:17:52 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: RE: Theos-World Rich on Devachan Dear Dallas, > As it would appear from its nature, Theosophy is the root and > basis of all the world's religions and philosophies. I am getting a bit tired of your way of presenting it as though Blavatsky's theosophy is identical with the Theosophy that is the root of all religions. Blavatsky's theosophy was her version of that religion and she was the first to suggest we study other sourses as well. By the way I am not denying the usefullness of her literature. I am a big fan and very happy with the three books from her Collected Writings I just bought (7,8,9). Very usefull material. Perhaps to head of a more diverse source-using on this list, I have a quote from the Hadith (=words wich are reported to be from Mohammed, but not in the Koran). My source is "Essential SUfism" by James Fadigan and Robert Frager.: "Whenever God loves a devotee, He subjects him to ordeals. Should he endure patiently, God singles him out; should he be content, God purifies him." THis thought is echoed by H.P.B. in her articles on Practical Occultism, later bundled in the small booklet of that name. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:06:07 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: RE: Theos-World A few questions on cloning.. Dear Dallas and Rafaella and Angie, Dallas wrote: > The "cloning" is a physiological process and so far involves > plants and animals, but has not been successful (that I have > heard) in regard to humans. This is partly because even for the famous sheep Dolly it was neccessary to implant hundreds of embrios befor one would come to term. So immense numbers of women have to be subjected to the trauma of the baby in their wombes dying, before one healthy child can be born. I have a friend involved in biochemistry and he says that there are wealthy people willing to pay good money for people trying to clone them, but so far it has not been tried. > In any case the Theosophical view is (as I get it from HPB's KEY > TO THEOSOPHY) the Spirit/Soul in man (the Real HUMAN) is a > reincarnating being. It is immortal. Karma determines the place > and family of its new reincarnation. > > Unless there is an agreement in terms of karma between the HIGHER > EGOS OF THE PARENTS (FATHER AND MOTHER) AND THE INCOMING EGO of > that being who will be their "child," there can be no incarnation > and consequently no physical body ought to be expected to mature. > However this is only my speculation, based on the ideas of the > IMMORTALITY of the REAL EGO, and the accuracy of KARMA which > operates uniformly and fairly for all beings. > Cloning is a physical and physiological and astral thing, and > does not seem to have the needed roots insofar as humans are > concerned in the psycho-spiritual planes. I think that since sheep can be reincarnated healthily, why can't humans? I do not see how karma should prevent this experiment. Also because from the S.D. it seems that in the early days of humanity *we* were all clones from our parents. Angie wrote: > we believe that all matter, down to the tiniest piece is > a part of the great > universal light. This being, even though not born > conventionally, will be > created of the same matter as everything else. How then could it > not be a part > of that universal light? exactly my thougt: it will be part of the universal light or spirit and in the same way that twins are each *created* or formed with a distinct soul, the new baby will be infused with its own personality. That is what I think. How could it not? It will grow up in very different circomstances from the parent, have a different astrological sign etc. How could it be an abonimation. If it is born healthily, than that is good and certainly not its fault: so it can not be punished for that. > Now, I think we can agree that the creators, right or wrong, will > have to deal > with whatever karma they have earned. But what of the child, and > those around > it? I'll start with a question for our group, in particular. If > we take the > tack that it has no soul, who among us would look a child in the > face and tell > it that it is a soul-less abomination, that it should never have > been born? > What karma do we create for those within our group if we teach > such ideas? no good can come from teaching such idea's in my oppinion... > As for the child, I have many questions. Would it pick up part of the spirit and karma of the one who donated the cells? Or would it follow current though, that each person has it's own karma? And if it has it's own karma, which of these would it be - A totally new spirit, taking it's very first steps on the karmic circles? Or, with all the trials, and most certainly prejudice against the method of it's birth, would it be the reincarnation of a soul that had built up so much karmic debt that it would need to work through such adversity to move on?> The child would have as much chance of a full karmic history as all of us, in my oppinion. Since it need not mention the way it was born, I don't think the social stigma need be so bad. > Another point raised was that when you get a transplant, or blood transfusion you get some of the essence of that donor. In natural conception, the child shares the lifeblood of it's mother, and some of that essence, as well as that from the seed of the father. What of a child without either of those influences? Would there be some deficiency of soul? Or, since the donor had these influences, and the clone is a copy, would it be similar to the donor, a copy of a whole soul? One thing I'm interested in learning is what studies are out there of children born in test-tubes? > This sounds like a misconception to me. No children are born out of testtubes. Children are sometimes conceived in testtubes, but for the full development of the baby it will have to be inplanted in a womb very soon after conception. So I should think that there are nine months of maternal influence even in those cases (minus a few days) > I find amidst all this I do have one firm belief. So long as we treat them as we would any other creature on this planet, with compassion, we cannot go far wrong.> ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:11:28 +0100 (Romance Standard Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: cloning Dear Kym > Uh, pardon me, but TWINS are clones of each other! The medical community > has acknowledged that the process of cloning in the lab is the same (minus > the uterus) as what occurs in the body of the mother of identical twins. > > And, it would seem that BOTH twins have souls. . .so why in the world > wouldn't a clone have one? Can a soul only enter a body if and only if the > body comes out of a vagina? > agreed. > Cloning has been successful in humans - and I think the soul can enter a > body whether it came from a tube or a womb This is a misconception. No child was yet born whithout coming from a mother's womb. The laboratories can recreate the coming together of a sperma-cell and the egg. They cannot recreate all the complex functions of the womb. Katinka (I also sent a longer e-mail on the subject, but this misconception asked also for a smaller reply in my oppinion-education in the States really needs improvement) ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:00:38 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Trans-Persnal Psychology -- its coverage Antiquity of Man -- Modern evidence needed Jan 29th Dear Peter: Sorry I put in the wrong name - but anyway there were many to read, and thank you for the correction. I believe I understand your point in regard to the approach of TRANS-PERSONAL PSYCHOLOGY. If, by chance your are familiar with HPB's definitions of the active and perceptive principle (MANAS - Mind), in humans (as found in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY) I have found that it serves to resolve the differences (not always conflicts) with the theories and their constant modifications of modern psychology, as new evidence is disclosed. As I understand it, the observation of reflexive responses (in animals, and in mankind of all ages), and the generation of spontaneous ideas and queries have to be reconciled. I say this broadly. In Theosophical terms, emotional feelings (KAMA) closely interacts with the mind (thought, memory, anticipation, logic, will, etc...)faculty - these are very closely allied in us all at this stage of our evolution. Therefore they are not easily separated. (Theosophy calls us Kama-Manasic beings - emotions and mind conjoined). Mind can be seen as a separate faculty acting as directed by our WILL, impersonally, as for instance in scientific investigation and the observation of facts, engineering, physics, astronomy, etc... And, especially in mathematics. There its action is dispassionate and the search for universal and fully verifiable truths is constant. When one inquires into the MOTIVE for such research, one finds that the "desire to know" moves the individual. This "desire to know" may be actuated by various motives. From pure desire for facts and knowledge, or the personal desire to prove a special point and eliminate any facts that are opposed to pre-judged conclusions. There is a whole range of motives that are of an ethical/moral quality in this discipline of the self/mind. It also invokes persistency or its lack. Accuracy, or its lack. Then when one finds that theories have already been evolved to account for observed facts, and that they have become generally accepted, one is confronted with the problem of discrepancies in current observations. This needs to be accounted for, and, at this point it becomes a matter of ethical and moral decision. Are the new facts to be broadcast? Should one broadcast one's unpopular findings, or should one bow to the opinions, long established and used, by the greater majority of one's "peers." The threat to one's standing and credibility introduces a moral/ethical decision here. The integration of morality and ethics with psychological observation, and the use of the mental faculty, is what Theosophy speaks of extensively. In fact (I would say) it is the missing link in our modern psychological sciences. The concept that man is an immortal being is ESSENCE as a Spirit/Soul and that he lives many lives on Earth as personalities (masks of the Real Inner Man) is something entirely (or almost entirely) lacking in current psychology, as that is relegated to "belief" and to "religion." And if those are independently studied, they are found to be in most cases irrational. But in the search for TRUTH and verity, these factors become all-important for true and general progress. WE have at present one very difficult situation. We start with material evidence that pertains strictly to this plane of effects, forms and movements. These we can observe. But what actuates them? What are the inner and unseen CAUSES that actuate them - causes that reside (broadly) in the emotional and rational aspects of man's faculties ? Now if Man is essentially rational and lives in an emotional environment the conflict in terms of behavior and choice becomes clearer (I think.) But, are we not all of us in exactly that situation ? And is not the mind admittedly superior in its power to the emotions ? does it not see clearer and anticipate results as a spectrum of "possibilities," - so that it may choose what it considers to be optimum in benefit for itself? At what point does the intense focus of self-preservation (in the future) and selfishness become a more universalized one, as the selfish-Self (Personality-Kama-Manas) sees that acting in terms of the general ethical/moral "good" (Karmic Law and Buddhi-Manas) serves (in the long run) to preserve its integrity and continued existence ? So long as this is set aside we have troubles in establishing an overview of all relationships in these areas, and as sciences or points of view (as beliefs or faiths) they remain disjointed. The ancients (as the modern Theosophists) integrated religion with science and philosophy. Generally, they placed the ethical/moral decision making as foremost in consideration and as the one factory that serves to assemble an integrated way of living. Is these musings are correct, or of any use ? Dallas =========================== -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of Peter > Merriott > Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 5:50 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: RE: Theos-World RE: Trans-Persnal Psychology -- its coverage == Antiquity of Man -- Modern evidence needed, please Dear Dallas, Actually it was me, Peter, who made that post. > Many thanks - my brush with "Trans-personal Psychology" had only > showed that they dealt more with the "psychic" [ Kama and Astral > side ]. The really "SPIRITUAL" [ HIGHER-MANAS and BUDDHI ] > remained to be identified. I'm sure that side of it also exists. There is research being carried out on 'altered states of consciousness' of many kinds which includes mystical, transcendent, meditative and 'psychic' experiences. "However, the larger emphasis is on the spiritual nature of the individual and humanity, and how this encompasses our spiritual, psychological and physical nature. The major thrust in Transpersonal Psychology is thus more along the lines of how we can use this understanding to gain a better knowledge of human development, for example - developmental tasks in relation to overall psycho-spiritual growth; interventions in psychological 'illnes'(so called); working in psychotherapeutic settings with people traumatised by life events, experiencing depression, hopelessness and despair, existential crises etc. > It is my opinion that the impersonal application of LAW - fair, > just, impersonal and enormously sensitive - to all beings as to > man's psyche was yet to be discussed scientifically > (impartially) - as this has often been regarded as the field of > ethics, morals and therefore "religious." > > Am I correct still on that ? I'm not sure, to be honest. I think there is a strong desire to understand the funadamental principles (laws) upon which the human constitution and life is based and the ethical issues that follow on from those 'priciples'. But, what I have noticed is that while many individuals talk 'privately' about reincarnation and the Law of Karma there is very little discussed on these topics in academic / clinical forums and debates. As a theosphist I see that as a great ommision. I also recognise that it is early days yet for transpersonal psychology and in order to be establised and gain a firm foothold in the world of Psychology it may well have to leave some things 'on the side' for the time being. Best wishes, Peter -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:00:28 -0500 (EST) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject...What is the SOUL = the MIND Jan 29th 1999 Dear Nancy: Essentially, in theosophy, and according to one good book, really worth reading carefully, THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by H.P.Blavatsky, The SOUL in man is equated with the Greek definition of NOUS - the thinking principle. Since thinking involves the whole of man's perceptions, no aspect of life, memory or anticipation is devoid of this faculty IN ACTION. It is the power to perceive, It is the Self-identifying feeling of Ego-ship. Descartes said is succinctly: "I think, therefore I am." Does this help ? Dallas -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com] On Behalf Of > N.Malcom > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 12:31 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject... How are you definning "soul"? I thought a soul was simply a sheath. ??? Nancy ---------- > From: Raffaella > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Theos-World A few questions on a touchy subject... > Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 4:01 AM > > In a discussion of the soul and reincarnation last night, I had brought up a > question - Cloning. Would a clone have a soul, and how would karma and > reincarnation work with them? I'd like to throw out to you some questions and > theories I've come up with, and only ask that your replies not be to the > rightness or wrongness of the act of cloning. That is a whole discussion in > itself. The point is, regardless of morals it will happen, and how do we > handle it? > > To start, it was put forth that no, it would not have a soul. But I must > question this - Nature abhors a void. From simply taking a scoop of water out > of a pool, to the endless ingress of matter to a black hole, nature in some > way or another fills a void. And think on this, if I've read aright we > believe that all matter, down to the tiniest piece is a part of the great > universal light. This being, even though not born conventionally, will be > created of the same matter as everything else. How then could it not be a part > of that universal light? > > Now, I think we can agree that the creators, right or wrong, will have to deal > with whatever karma they have earned. But what of the child, and those around > it? I'll start with a question for our group, in particular. If we take the > tack that it has no soul, who among us would look a child in the face and tell > it that it is a soul-less abomination, that it should never have been born? > What karma do we create for those within our group if we teach such ideas? > > As for the child, I have many questions. Would it pick up part of the spirit > and karma of the one who donated the cells? Or would it follow current > thought, that each person has it's own karma? And if it has it's own karma, > which of these would it be - A totally new spirit, taking it's very first > steps on the karmic circles? Or, with all the trials, and most certainly > prejudice against the method of it's birth, would it be the reincarnation of a > soul that had built up so much karmic debt that it would need to work through > such adversity to move on? > > Another point raised was that when you get a transplant, or blood transfusion > you get some of the essence of that donor. In natural conception, the child > shares the lifeblood of it's mother, and some of that essence, as well as that > from the seed of the father. What of a child without either of those > influences? Would there be some deficiency of soul? Or, since the donor had > these influences, and the clone is a copy, would it be similar to the donor, a > copy of a whole soul? One thing I'm interested in learning is what studies > are out there of children born in test-tubes? This may shed at least some > light on the question of parental influence. > > As for me, I still have too many questions to come to any solid conclusions > yet. I think you can guess that I am leaning towards them having some sort of > soul, but still I am not sure of this. Morally right? Wrong? Soul or None? I > find amidst all this I do have one firm belief. So long as we treat them as > we would any other creature on this planet, with compassion, we cannot go far wrong. > > -Angie > > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com > > Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and > teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of > "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 05:52:33 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 29, 1999 Jan 30th Dear Katinka: The reason that I say that Mme. Blavatsky presented as Theosophy (its theories, propositions and doctrines) an aspect of the ancient and immemorial THEOSOPHY of the Ages, is that she said so, and that the Masters of Wisdom endorsed her. But that acceptance (of mine, and the consequent respect I pay to HPB's writings) is not based on their say-so or any "Authority." She gives all credit to those "Masters." And further she states that They are the original Rishis and Dhyanis who were responsible for the establishment of our Earth and its evolutionary progress. Is that puzzling ? If one studies the writings of HPB carefully one will become sooner or later convinced of their value, their coherency, and the consecutive nature and inter-relation of all the statements made. Again this is something that one builds up for ones' self. It has to become a matter of inner conviction and self-authority. I have no idea why you seem "tired" of my reiteration - if you can explain the reason for that to me, then I might be able to point to something that can explain it/or my own affirmation. Dallas PS Unless I am much mistaken you also made some comments on the cloning of the sheep "Dolly" I read the posts and comments. Theosophically, sheep and animals do not have the same kind of "soul-nature" or "soul-development" that humans have. The all-important Mind aspect of such a form is still to be developed. The "instinct" of an animal form, is not the "ratiocination" or the "independent self-identity and moral responsibility" of a human, even the most savage. No where (that I know) in Theosophy is there shown to be an unbroken link between animals and humans. The Life that animates the animal has a different process of re-embodiment from that of a human, and is actuated by Nature, without any self-consciousness (or individual/personal Karma) being active. Dal ==================== --- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:56:31 GMT From: alpha@dircon.co.uk Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 29, 1999 Katinka: > >"Whenever God loves a devotee, He subjects him to ordeals. >Should he endure patiently, God singles him out; should he >be content, God purifies him." > >THis thought is echoed by H.P.B. in her articles on >Practical Occultism, later bundled in the small booklet of >that name. This is just a point of information. The third article bundled (an excellent choice of words) in the small booklet: "Some Practical Suggestions for Daily Life," isn't by HPB, and yet quotes are often made from it saying that they are by her. It is appreceiated you may not be referring to this article. >> I find amidst all this I do have one firm belief. So >long as we treat them as we would any other creature on >this planet, with compassion, we cannot go far wrong.> The sad thing is, by just looking back over thousands of years of history, humanity as a whole isn't yet compassionate. If it was we wouldn't be wishing to clone people in the first place? Already some are saying they would like a clone of themselves, so that they can use it for spare body parts. Compassion brings forth a Buddha. Perhaps this can be our "measure." Is cloning compassionate? >This is a misconception. No child was yet born whithout >coming from a mother's womb. The laboratories can recreate >the coming together of a sperma-cell and the egg. They >cannot recreate all the complex functions of the womb. "The Secret Doctrine" does refer to different methods of birth, both past and future (e.g., sweat born, mind born, etc.), one in fact in the reasonably near future, what ever reasonably near might mean, in the larger time-scale of things. Best wishes Tony From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:44:01 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The February THEOSOPHY WORLD and HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST are Out The February issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD just came out. It's contents are: "Encyclopedic Theosophy Glossary," by Sarah Belle Dougherty "The Path is Life Itself," Part I, by Eldon Tucker "Do We Have A Cycle Closing Now?" by Dallas TenBroeck "The Road of Sensitivity," by Katinka Hesselink "Taking an Ten-Day Vipassana Meditation Course," by Ray Tomes "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "Fogies or What?" by Sy Ginsburg "To Friends Both Far and Near," by Carmen Small "Eternal Man," by Dara Eklund "Forty Years at Headquarters: The Theosophical Society, Point Loma, California," by Iverson L. Harris "The Speech of the Gods," by C. Johnston & George Russell THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. ---- The February issue of THE HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST, edited by Dick Slusser, is online and available at: ftp://ftp.theosophy.com/pub/theosophy/hct/hct9902.pdf HCT files carry the extension .PDF (Portable Document File) readable with the Adobe Acrobat reader. It is available free at: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html The www homepage is: http://theosophy.com/hct.html The February issue features: Crop Circles SECRET DOCTRINE Questions & Answers ISIS UNVEILED: Extraordinary Story of Its Writing Abhinya Writes Congratulations to John Greschner The Knower From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 22:54:41 -0700 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: January 30, 1999 Dallas wrote: >Again, why should the intermixing of the gametes invoke a >"soul/mind" to use a potential "body/form" which will not have >any future as a living human ? That's a good question - but the same question can be applied to the circumstance of an infant dying after only a few days or months. Is the experience of being an infant for a few days "worth" an entry of a "soul/mind?" I'm not sure if I want to declare that immediately born infants do not possess a "soul/mind" although I do know there are those who believe the "soul" enters even a few days later. Could be true, I don't know. But if a "soul/mind" did enter a "being" that had no future in 'humandom,' would that really still constitute a "waste of time?" Is there nothing to learn or experience even in the gamete stage? Maybe, but what is to be learned and experienced as a day-old infant only to die that very night? It would seem to me that EVERY circumstance a "soul/mind" may find itself in could potentially be a worthwhile experience - from rock to bug to gamete to human to whatever. But if someone asked "Kym, are you willing to eat dirt to stand by that statement?" Hmmm, I guess my answer would depend on how many people were watching. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:53:01 +1300 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: January 16, 1999 - Grief Dear Kym I'm writing this much later than I would have liked to, because of demands from the "real world" (Ha!) >Not to dig into your personal life, but you were quite young when your >first wife died. That is an awful lot to deal with when someone is just >beginning their journey into adulthood. I am assuming your wife was young >also, which can seem to make death all the worse. Well, I was a bit further on than beginning the journey into adulthood, but it was certainly hard to watch someone die when they had so much potential close to being realised. But she made an immense transition over the space of her last year. The steps were often painful, as when realising that she would now never do certain things her friends would take for granted they would do, but they culminated in a truly beautiful spirit of love towards those around - a completed letting-go with a quietly radiant selfhood in her last 3 days. A real gift. >Yes, I have often wondered what the newly-dead experience - whether they >grieve, have to adjust, miss their loved ones, etc. In Western society the >dead are often portrayed as going merrily into heaven with not a thought of >what or who remains behind. It would seem odd if that were true, unless >some kind of 'sudden enlightenment' occurs, which doesn't seem quite >logical either. I often wondered the same things, and think that the newly-dead are most certainly mindful of who is left behind, on top of having to make their own adjustments. A principle of reasonable continuity is a good guide. If, as we are told, the recently-dead can be with their physically-dwelling loved ones while the latter are asleep, then the physically alive ones have the disadvantage of remembering little or nothing of any night-time interactions, but the newly-dead have a stream of unbroken awareness which would lessen their own sense of loss. I am sure an understanding person would, after death, realise the huge belief-structural and perceptual disadvantages their physical loved ones are labouring under. It becomes more of a problem, though, if one in the physical world becomes trapped at some stage of their grieving process and is unable to move through it. There's one thing, though; whatever you read about the after-death state has to be grossly under-representative of the inner worlds with their vast variety - each person being so different. I believe strongly that we should allow grief its time and space - there's a hell of a lot to work out and adjust to. It is unreasonable to expect, as some theosophists seem to, that simply having an intellectual assurance of life after death should somehow magically enable us to transcend grief in one heroic leap. An awareness of theosophy certainly makes a big difference, and transcendence *can* happen, but there's far more at stake than the question of survival, as I'm sure you're only too well aware. >>I can imagine *you* being influenced by socially-implanted ideas, of course >>... :) > >Oh, how I wish that were so! My past years as a Catholic to Christian >Fundamentalist has left some residual "poison" which serves to frighten and >shake my foundations on occasion. It's hard to remove imprints that have >been hammered into you for years and years - only later do you realize the >damage done. Now I've swung almost completely to the other side, I think - >hopefully, in time, balance will come. I have great admiration for those who have climbed the steep walls of religiously-implanted fear and misbelief, out into the open, to walk with their own feet - who have come to see their own belief structures and have chosen to confront and alter them. This is not to denigrate the best in the different religions, because this inner confrontation comes to all who choose to walk the walk. All facets of their accumulated psyche must ultimately come to clear sight. Painful, if not terrifying. >This particular time is fraught with bad dreams - dreams that she's not >really dead and is buried alive and suffering, dreams that there are bugs >coming in and out of her ears, dreams where I find her under a pile of >ashes still alive. Clearly, my mind is struggling to accept this death, >but it somehow must. Ah, yes, when the work is done. If you can let each image, each instance go on its way .... note it and let it go. Perhaps you are touching more than your own suffering, but tapping into humanity's accumulated psychic junk in these sharply-anguished days, by resonance. I have seen extraordinarily yukky, demonic images rise one after the other to my inward eye but the flow, in time, eased right away. You might like to try actually asking the Light to gently flood your whole being, like soft sunlit rain, and wash the agonised mass of this stuff out of your being. It may not seem to do anything at first - you might not even feel you can ask! - but the heartfelt desire and intention will bring its response. I acknowledge the rest of your message, hot from the heart, and wish you well. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 06:26:55 -0800 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: January 30, 1999 Jan 31st Dear Kym: Quack - quack ! Sorry not India (though I lived there 30 years ago for 35 years) - I am now in California (where I was born). As to my being funny in bird language - well I can't help that impression, but, to me I am quite serious, and try to present an augmented dimension of consideration based on what I have learned from Theosophy. I am aware that this will sound very strange, but only request a sympathetic thought directed to the logic and environment that theosophy looks at. Dal Sure the physical side of test-tube fertilization works, but not invariably, or mechanically (one wonders what the reasons for that are) but then in humans the growing embryo is implanted in a living womb and then subject to the Mother's assistance for all the time till birth. I can't hazard a guess as to the nature of the Ego thus incarnating. D. ========================== From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 10:48:40 -0800 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The February THEOSOPHY WORLD and HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST are Out The February issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD just came out. It's contents are: "Encyclopedic Theosophy Glossary," by Sarah Belle Dougherty "The Path is Life Itself," Part I, by Eldon Tucker "Do We Have A Cycle Closing Now?" by Dallas TenBroeck "The Road of Sensitivity," by Katinka Hesselink "Taking an Ten-Day Vipassana Meditation Course," by Ray Tomes "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "Fogies or What?" by Sy Ginsburg "To Friends Both Far and Near," by Carmen Small "Eternal Man," by Dara Eklund "Forty Years at Headquarters: The Theosophical Society, Point Loma, California," by Iverson L. Harris "The Speech of the Gods," by C. Johnston & George Russell THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. ---- The February issue of THE HIGH COUNTRY THEOSOPHIST, edited by Dick Slusser, is online and available at: ftp://ftp.theosophy.com/pub/theosophy/hct/hct9902.pdf HCT files carry the extension .PDF (Portable Document File) readable with the Adobe Acrobat reader. It is available free at: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html The www homepage is: http://theosophy.com/hct.html The February issue features: Crop Circles SECRET DOCTRINE Questions & Answers ISIS UNVEILED: Extraordinary Story of Its Writing Abhinya Writes Congratulations to John Greschner The Knower