From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:23:59 -0700 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The May THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The May issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD just came out. It's contents are: "Creation Myths and Occult Cosmogony," by Joy Mills "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "The Guru-Chela Relationship," by Katinka Hesselink "Man After Death," by G. Cardinal Le Gros "Some Ideas and Thoughts on Devotion, by Dallas TenBroeck "Why I'm Not Interested," by Perry Spiller "Two Beloved Attributes," by Rose Winkler, MD "The Sight of the Radiant Mind," by Eldon B. Tucker 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, 01 May 1999 07:35:00 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Why the decline in interest in TS/Theosophy There have been comments about why the general interest in TS/theosophy has been declining. Here is an exceprt from the latest theosophy world: WHY I'M NOT INTERESTED by Perry Spiller At the risk of being overly forthright, I generally found Theosophy -- and theosophists -- too theosophically-minded to be of any earthly value. Well, more-or-less so. And mostly so. However, I did learn a lot from them before moving on. My personal spiritual development finds little that's edifying in abstract and sometimes abstruse concepts. I have an urgent need for wisdom that deals with (and helps me deal with) the here-and-now. I consider myself an exoteric heretic, a student of mystical and esoteric Christianity and spirituality, a bit of a pantheist, and sorely tired by the burden this all imposes on what I do today and tomorrow. ==================== I think the above comment is very telling. While much of the theoretical material is of great value and important, for the common man and woman, what they are looking forward is action. Not some theory. I think that Krishnamurti tried to bring home the same point. He was talking about human relationships here and now and the need to make immediate change in ourselves now at this moment and not in any distant future. It may be time to brain storm and find out what is missing and why the fire and energy that we saw in the early days of TS is lacking today. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 08:02:30 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Why the membership has become so miniscule At 03:08 PM 4/30/1999 EDT, LeonMaurer@aol.com wrote in theosopy talk: >Do you wonder why the membership in ALL theosophical=20 >groups has dropped to such a minuscule level since the time of HPB and WQJ? =20 leftLet me try to give a shot at this question. I think that the answer lies in what she said at the end of Key to Theosophy which I quote below: Let me also add a few further comments of mine. 1. It appears that HPB's predictions are coming true and hence all of us share the responsibility for the current status. 2. HPB talks about the next Torch Bearer. Many believe that it is Krishnamurti. Many do not agree. However, the fact is that after Krishnamurti came on board and started lecturing, there has been no theosophical leader of his charisma and influence. As a matter of fact, in Adyar(TS), the leaders who followed Annie Besant seems to have put it more in a maintenance mode. I do not see any charismatic leader in sight even today. As early as late 1920s, Krishnamurti made a comment that Adyar is dead and he may be right. A visit to any bookstore shows that K's books out number theosophy books by 10-20 to 1, which seem to indicate the general interest in his teachings. Also I recently found out that the annual operating budget and net assets of the Krishnamurti Foundation in America is far larger compared to TSA. Further more, KFA's annual fund raising is about 3 times that of TSA. May be it is time to brain storm and see what can be done here and now before the TS organizations become extinct or put on life support. mkr =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY ENQUIRER. Tell me, what do you expect for Theosophy in the future? THEOSOPHIST. If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has existed eternally throughout the endless cycles upon cycles of the Past, so it will ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future, because Theosophy is synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH. ENQUIRER. Pardon me; I meant to ask you rather about the prospects of the Theosophical Society. THEOSOPHIST. Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on the amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members, on whom it will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society after the death of the Founders. ENQUIRER. I quite see the importance of their being selfless and devoted, but I do not quite grasp how their knowledge can be as vital a factor in the question as these other qualities. Surely the literature which already exists, and to which constant additions are still being made, ought to be sufficient? THEOSOPHIST. I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine, though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will have of unbiassed and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember that all our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die. ENQUIRER. But if this danger be averted? THEOSOPHIST. Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of Religion, Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it will break down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way to the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men. Through its teaching, through the philosophy which it has rendered accessible and intelligible to the modern mind, the West will learn to understand and appreciate the East at its true value. Further, the development of the psychic powers and faculties, the premonitory symptoms of which are already visible in America, will proceed healthily and normally. Mankind will be saved from the terrible dangers, both mental and bodily, which are inevitable when that unfolding takes place, as it threatens to do, in a hot-bed of selfishness and all evil passions. Man's mental and psychic growth will proceed in harmony with his moral improvement, while his material surroundings will reflect the peace and fraternal good-will which will reign in his mind, instead of the discord and strife which is everywhere apparent around us to-day. ENQUIRER. A truly delightful picture! But tell me, do you really expect all this to be accomplished in one short century? THEOSOPHIST. Scarcely. But I must tell you that during the last quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made by those "Masters," of whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of spirituality -- or call it mysticism if you prefer -- has taken place. Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed historical records extend. ENQUIRER. But how does this bear on the future of the Theosophical Society? THEOSOPHIST. If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds better than its predecessors have done, then it will be in existence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition of men's minds and hearts will have been improved and purified by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said, their prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent at least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible literature ready to men's hands, the next impulse will find a numerous and united body of people ready to welcome the new torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for his message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which will remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from his path. Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity is given, could accomplish. Measure it by comparison with what the Theosophical Society actually has achieved in the last fourteen years, without any of these advantages and surrounded by hosts of hindrances which would not hamper the new leader. Consider all this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say that if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its mission, to its original impulses through the next hundred years -- tell me, I say, if I go too far in asserting that earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first century in comparison with what it is now! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 23:30:48 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: brotherhood and Kosovo In a message dated 4/11/99 11:59:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << A few moments later [HPB] observed: .."ALTRUISM"...is the keynote of Theosophy and the cure for all ills; this it is which the real Founders of the Theosophical Society promote as its first object--UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD." >> So to the person who said that helping the Kosovar refugees may be contributing to the perpetuation of negative energy, I would say: should you not help your own brother or sister if he or she cries out in distress? If not, what is the meaning of universal brotherhood? Can I feed a starving baby with universal brotherhood, or heal someone's wounds? If not, if it's a rarefied intellectual concept only, or a pretext to make us feel spiritually superior while not having to lift a finger for our fellow creatures in agony, then I don't want any part of it. But I think that would be a sorry misinterpretation. Try explaining to a refugee that there is no food or medicine or shelter because you don't want to enhance the negative energy in the world. Such fancies are the luxury of people whose stomachs are full and who have a roof over their heads. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 05:59:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Future of Theosophy and the T S = HPB - "Key" May 2nd 1999 Dear Friends: In the next week the anniversary of H.P.B.'s death (May 8th) will come. As our thoughts may turn to that date, and we add to the cyclic influence of that date that epitomized a life-time of service to mankind, we ought to review her life work and message. we think of what Theosophy could be, of what she sacrificed so much for, and what our debt to her may be. I believe we have a large debt. What can we do to settle it? Have we assured ourselves that there is validity to Theosophy? Have we thought of our present responsibility to apply what we have learned of its quality and nature? Have we thought about the effort that is to be made by ourselves to "pass it along?" There is a valuable article "EACH MEMBER A CENTER." [PATH, October 1895] The author quotes from one of the letters written by a Master of Wisdom, that "each member could become, in his own town or city, if earnest, sincere and unselfish, an active center from which would radiate unseen powerful forces able to influence men and women in the vicinity for good; and that soon enquirers would appear, a Branch be organized, and thus the whole neighbourhood would receive benefit." The author adds: "remember that we are not fighting for any form of organization, nor for badges, nor for petty personal ends, but for Theosophy; for the benefit, the advantage, the good of our fellow-men..Unselfishness is the real keynote.." To the query : "What will be the Future of the T S and of Theosophy" There is nothing so definite and clear as what HPB, who was the chief Founder of the Theosophical Society, wrote in THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY. Towards the end of the book, on p. 304 (original 1889 Edition) we can find her words in this regard -- quoted below. I hope that this may be of help. Best wishes, Dallas Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc.net ================================== THE FUTURE OF THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY ENQUIRER. Tell me, what do you expect for Theosophy in the future? THEOSOPHIST. If you speak of THEOSOPHY, I answer that, as it has existed eternally throughout the endless cycles upon cycles of the Past, so it will ever exist throughout the infinitudes of the Future, because Theosophy is synonymous with EVERLASTING TRUTH. ENQUIRER. Pardon me; I meant to ask you rather about the prospects of the Theosophical Society. THEOSOPHIST. Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on the amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members, on whom it will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society after the death of the Founders. ENQUIRER. I quite see the importance of their being selfless and devoted, but I do not quite grasp how their knowledge can be as vital a factor in the question as these other qualities. Surely the literature which already exists, and to which constant additions are still being made, ought to be sufficient? THEOSOPHIST. I do not refer to technical knowledge of the esoteric doctrine, though that is most important; I spoke rather of the great need which our successors in the guidance of the Society will have of unbiassed and clear judgment. Every such attempt as the Theosophical Society has hitherto ended in failure, because, sooner or later, it has degenerated into a sect, set up hard-and-fast dogmas of its own, and so lost by imperceptible degrees that vitality which living truth alone can impart. You must remember that all our members have been bred and born in some creed or religion, that all are more or less of their generation both physically and mentally, and consequently that their judgment is but too likely to be warped and unconsciously biassed by some or all of these influences. If, then, they cannot be freed from such inherent bias, or at least taught to recognise it instantly and so avoid being led away by it, the result can only be that the Society will drift off on to some sandbank of thought or another, and there remain a stranded carcass to moulder and die. ENQUIRER. But if this danger be averted? THEOSOPHIST. Then the Society will live on into and through the twentieth century. It will gradually leaven and permeate the great mass of thinking and intelligent people with its large-minded and noble ideas of Religion, Duty, and Philanthropy. Slowly but surely it will burst asunder the iron fetters of creeds and dogmas, of social and caste prejudices; it will break down racial and national antipathies and barriers, and will open the way to the practical realisation of the Brotherhood of all men. Through its teaching, through the philosophy which it has rendered accessible and intelligible to the modern mind, the West will learn to understand and appreciate the East at its true value. Further, the development of the psychic powers and faculties, the premonitory symptoms of which are already visible in America, will proceed healthily and normally. Mankind will be saved from the terrible dangers, both mental and bodily, which are inevitable when that unfolding takes place, as it threatens to do, in a hot-bed of selfishness and all evil passions. Man's mental and psychic growth will proceed in harmony with his moral improvement, while his material surroundings will reflect the peace and fraternal good-will which will reign in his mind, instead of the discord and strife which is everywhere apparent around us to-day. ENQUIRER. A truly delightful picture! But tell me, do you really expect all this to be accomplished in one short century? THEOSOPHIST. Scarcely. But I must tell you that during the last quarter of every hundred years an attempt is made by those "Masters," of whom I have spoken, to help on the spiritual progress of Humanity in a marked and definite way. Towards the close of each century you will invariably find that an outpouring or upheaval of spirituality -- or call it mysticism if you prefer -- has taken place. Some one or more persons have appeared in the world as their agents, and a greater or less amount of occult knowledge and teaching has been given out. If you care to do so, you can trace these movements back, century by century, as far as our detailed historical records extend. ENQUIRER. But how does this bear on the future of the Theosophical Society? THEOSOPHIST. If the present attempt, in the form of our Society, succeeds better than its predecessors have done, then it will be in existence as an organized, living and healthy body when the time comes for the effort of the XXth century. The general condition of men's minds and hearts will have been improved and purified by the spread of its teachings, and, as I have said, their prejudices and dogmatic illusions will have been, to some extent at least, removed. Not only so, but besides a large and accessible literature ready to men's hands, the next impulse will find a numerous and united body of people ready to welcome the new torch-bearer of Truth. He will find the minds of men prepared for his message, a language ready for him in which to clothe the new truths he brings, an organization awaiting his arrival, which will remove the merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from his path. Think how much one, to whom such an opportunity is given, could accomplish. Measure it by comparison with what the Theosophical Society actually has achieved in the last fourteen years, without any of these advantages and surrounded by hosts of hindrances which would not hamper the new leader. Consider all this, and then tell me whether I am too sanguine when I say that if the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its mission, to its original impulses through the next hundred years -- tell me, I say, if I go too far in asserting that earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first century in comparison with what it is now! KEY TO THEOSOPHY p. 304... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 08:40:55 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: brotherhood and Kosovo At 11:30 PM 5/1/1999 EDT, you wrote: > >So to the person who said that helping the Kosovar refugees may be >contributing to the perpetuation of negative energy, I would say: should you >not help your own brother or sister if he or she cries out in distress? Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the refugees. Leaving aside all questionable assumptions and presumptions about negative energy and possible explanation of theory of Karma, the refugee needs food and shelter. They need it now. How can anyone not do something, however little one can. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:19:54 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Speeding up your Karma Hi MKR, Since I already looked up a quote by H.P.B. on this subject, I think I will share it even if this is not absolutely neccessary: >> As soon as one steps on the Path leading to the Ashrum of the blessed Masters-the last and only custodians of Primitive Wisdom and Truth- his Karma, instead of having to be distributed throughout his long life, falls upon him in a block and crushes him with its whole weight." C.W. VII, p. 247 Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:41:19 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Why the decline in interest in TS/Theosophy > WHY I'M NOT INTERESTED by Perry Spiller > At the risk of being overly forthright, I generally found > Theosophy -- and theosophists -- too theosophically-minded to be > of any earthly value. Well, more-or-less so. And mostly so. > However, I did learn a lot from them before moving on. Well, that is good, isn't it. To be sad of him moving on is making the cup half-empty. I am glad he learned something. I think that for many people that is exactly what the T.S. is for: it shows a road. That does not mean that people have to follow it by staying (active) members. > My personal spiritual development finds little that's edifying in > abstract and sometimes abstruse concepts. I have an urgent need > for wisdom that deals with (and helps me deal with) the > here-and-now. My personal development does find something in that. To each his own. We cannot stop talking about those subjects only because there are people who want to talk about something else. Nor do the T.S.-es have to be for everyone who is searching for truth. Let us just do our jobs and as long as there are the funds for publishing books and magazines and lodges with active interest, let us not worry to much! On the other hand practical wisdom is something that people talk about in the T.S.. As far as action goes: that is up to the individual member, in my oppinion. We do not need an organisation for that. Or if we do, (Amnesty is a good example of a usefull organisation in this field and there are numerous others) the T.S. is not it. ==================== M.K.R.: > I think the above comment is very telling. While much of the theoretical > material is of great value and important, for the common man and woman, > what they are looking forward is action. Not some theory. > It may be time to brain storm and find out what is missing and why the > fire and energy that we saw in the early days of TS is lacking today. Perhaps the fire you admire about the early days of the TS was not so much in the TS as a whole but in HPB. She complained very of members being only interested in talking about ethics, while not ever doing anything. So even in those days the TS was only as firy as the people in it. Of course HPB had fire enough. Expecting the TS (any TS) to suply the fire is probably unrealistic. There will be fire in our lives when we TRY for ourselves to apply the practical wisdom she supplied buried in theory. But in fact the TS does offer even to the not so intellectual student plenty of advice on the pitfalls in the first stages of the path. This is probably part of what Perry Spiller has learned. That is not so bad. I do think we could be doing more to help extract the jewels of ethical advice from the jewels of abstract thought. And I am not even mentioning the volumes of unorganised matter on almost any subject thinkable that we call the Collected Writings. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 12:55:02 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Why the membership has become so miniscule On Sat, 01 May 1999 08:02:30 -0500 M K Ramadoss wrote: > A visit to any bookstore shows that K's books out number theosophy books > by 10-20 to 1, which seem to indicate the general interest in his > teachings. Also I recently found out that the annual operating budget and > net assets of the Krishnamurti Foundation in America is far larger > compared to TSA. Further more, KFA's annual fund raising is about 3 times > that of TSA. It is obvious that Krishnamurti is more successful than the T.S. though in Dutch bookstores the amount of books sold about Krishnamurti are as nothing compared to the amount of books sold about antroposofie (Steiner). Does that mean that Krishnamurti did not do his job? I do not think these things can be measured in numbers. > May be it is time to brain storm and see what can be done here and now > before the TS organizations become extinct or put on life support. In the Netherlands membership is actually climbing for its second year now. I feel that only a truly democratic spirit can save the T.S., because the complains on for instance the TI-l-list are mostly of that order. THere are so many beautiful and useful books being published on all the religions in the world, that it seems a shame not to be studying them. I feel the T.S. is not working enough in that quarter. Also we need to step away from leaders deciding everything. Spiritual work means that we search together, but not with differences of authority. It seems the T.S. is slow in practicing that, even though Krishnamurti has made us preach it. As far as my own country goes: I have no complaints even in that quarter. Is that democratic spirit perhaps the reason memberships go up again? It is good to discuss this, but I do think that success cannot be measured by numbers alone. The Buddha was content to do years of traveling and talking and saying: if there was one person that understood, I did not work in vain. The Mahatma's said: as long as there are three persons in the TS who deserve our blessing, the TS is not in vain. (well, they said the TS would then still be blessed by their attention, but I refrased it a bit). So, although I think it is wise to be critical of the TS and strive to make it better, the cup is still halffull, as far as I am concerned. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 06:42:55 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Speeding up your Karma > >> As soon as one steps on the Path leading to the Ashrum > of the blessed Masters-the last and only custodians of > Primitive Wisdom and Truth- his Karma, instead of having to > be distributed throughout his long life, falls upon him in > a block and crushes him with its whole weight." Or, as a friend of mine so eloquently put it, "Stepping on the Path is like walking up to the Lords of Karma, snapping one's fingers, and saying "Check please ...". Tee hee, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 06:53:44 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Speeding up your Karma Dear Katinka: Thanks for the info. ...mkr At 12:19 PM 5/6/1999 +0200, you wrote: >Hi MKR, > >Since I already looked up a quote by H.P.B. on this >subject, I think I will share it even if this is not >absolutely neccessary: > >>> As soon as one steps on the Path leading to the Ashrum >of the blessed Masters-the last and only custodians of >Primitive Wisdom and Truth- his Karma, instead of having to >be distributed throughout his long life, falls upon him in >a block and crushes him with its whole weight." >C.W. VII, p. 247 > > > > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 12:19:27 -0500 From: Ramadoss Subject: Internet in Hospital Yesterday when I visited the Intensive Care unit of the local hospital, I was surprised to find the Nurse Station being provided with Internet so that they can use them when they have nothing else to do. This just shows how far Internet has penetrated into the day to day activities. What next? I expect every hospital bed to be provided with Internet access just like telephones are provided now. Internet is here to stay and we have not yet seen it full impact yet. On its Juggernaut like move, many traditional approaches are likely to be modified or crushed out of existence. Keep tuned for more exciting Internet applications. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 16:02:40 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Why the decline in interest in TS/Theosophy May 6th Dear Martin: Thanks for your comments. I will put some notes below in the body of your response, if you don't mind. Thanks, Best wishes, Dallas Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc.net ========================= -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Martin Leiderman > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 9:22 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Why the decline in interest in TS/Theosophy Dear Dallas and All, I do not agree with you in you view about the role of leadership in Theosophy. It may semantic. I simply call leader who commits himself or herself to the well-being of Lodge or a Study Group, including headquarters, etc. ========================== DALLAS That is exactly what I meant -- EACH MEMBER IS COMMITTING TO THE SUPPORT OF AN ASSOCIATION THE BEST THAT THEY KNOW HOW. They do not need others to tell them what to do. They will do as they please anyway -- and that is the fate of all organizations when scrutinized. For instance: What is wrong with the Original three objects as framed that they need to be changed in any way ? Has the membership been referred to? Is it a matter of passive acceptance ? =============================== The point in question is as presented by Ramadoss, is that there is a decline in membership and visitors in our lecture halls. Why? The answer is not in the theosophical books but in our theosophical work. In the way the 'they' perceives the TS impact in personal growth. THEOSOPHY IS PERFECT because it deals with Divine-Wisdom . . . but ULT, TSA, etc may disappear if no new generation of theosophist join and work for the cause.Is this true? ============================= DALLAS To me it is totally unimportant what an organization, or association names itself. That which is important is how it carries into practice the ideals that it sets forth. In the matter of Theosophy, which HPB says, is "eternal truth," nothing less but the greatest honesty and sincerity will do. Those practices that set out common work need to be defined, and then practiced. Once they are clear to everyone, it is easy to see if the management and conduct of such a body follows the ideals. It also has the virtue of keeping things strictly accurate and true -- it is an application of universality and hence of BROTHERHOOD. If it does not, and the members do not, insist on accuracy in practice, then it will eventually perish. HOWEVER This does not mean that THEOSOPHY as originally promulgated by the Adepts and HPB, Their messenger, is wrong. It means that people have not had the strength to carry out the ideals in practice. [ NOTE: The Adepts, Masters, Mahatmas, whatever designation is given to Them, made it clear that HPB was Their Agent, and wrote according to their bidding. Without HPB and her work there would be no T S. If the Theosophy of the Mahatmas is not studied and if the writings of HPB are neglected, then no one can expect the T S to last.] =================================== I have heard that some theosophist are just happy to see the TS selling theosophical books, for the buyer will read them and learn theosophy. And they see the future of the TS as such. Have you heard that? Out of curiosity, if I volunteer to give a talk at ULT on a Sunday evening about the Egyptian Book of the Dead, how is it decided? Who gets to vote on it. One I asked and a young kid told me that only staff members give talks. What is the decision mechanism? ====================================== DALLAS As far as I know the ULT exists for the study and promulgation of the philosophy of Theosophy as recorded in the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and Wm. Q. Judge. The DECLARATION of the ULT is the sole document on which a group of self-constituted volunteers meets to study Theosophy, and where personal affiliation is not asked about. There are no rules and regulations nor are there any "officers." The monthly Program of meetings is sent to anyone who desires to receive it. It commences with the statement: "To spread broadcast the teachings of Theosophy as recorded in the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and William Q. Judge." No substitution for those originals is entertained. If you offer to give a talk, you ought to address the ULT directly at their office and address. One would presume that you have spent several years in the intensive study of the original teachings, as nothing else forms the basis for presentation or mutual discussion at ULT study meetings. As a regular attendant at ULT meetings you must be aware of this. ULT would not entertain "outside" lecturers unless they are deep students who have a ready familiarity with the writings of HPB and WQJ. The program of work at the ULT is always framed several months or weeks in advance. Since 1909 it has been operating on this basis for the benefit of all who attend, and its meetings are free and open to anyone who comes. ================================= In no way I mean it in a negative way, or to make fun of ULT, nor I am writing any paper on it. In my Study Group in West LA, if you want to visit us and gives a talk 'on theosophy' I say yes, a done deal and no efforts, and is very simple. To 'theosophise' means to repeat the dead letter of the theosophical books without the soul and spirit that accompanies when the one who talk is a living truth of it. I think that is what a meant. ============================== DALLAS I can also understand that repeating words without explanation is a useless exercise. However the repetition of those original words offer the ideas that the original Founders intended to use for the public to grasp. This was and is done so that what theosophy meant (and means even today) in terms of "metaphysical ideals" is available, as an ideal, which each person can personally study and decide if they wish to apply in their daily living. This contact with the noumenon of Theosophy, might move to feel the mighty movement of the One SPIRIT that is present within them, and cause some to commence to inquire into their meaning. This is what the ULT exists for -- to inquire into the meaning of the presentation of original Theosophy. As an example, consider all the work done currently by several dozen scholars of the Bible -- their search for original texts (some 2,000 years old), and their painstaking efforts to obtain a version of an ORIGINAL which can be relied on, instead of those that have to be restored to the original base because of the "changes" that have been made in them in transliterating, or alterations of doctrine down the 20 centuries that separate us from the age of the events that shape so many of our modern lives. It is only 108 years since the death of HPB's last used body. And it saddens me to the hast with which some are desiring to alter and conceal the clear and straight presentation of those truths that are age-old. The pleas is that they are not in modern English. Neither is Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw, Kippling, Emerson, Thoreau, Milton, Keats, Byron, Boehme, Shopenhauer, Coleridge, Newton, Goethe, Spinoza and Leibnitz, Shilling, Zola, Dickens, Austin, and what kind of uproar would scholars level at those who would "modernize" those phrases ? Is philosophy and the wisdom of antiquity to receive less appreciation at our hands than those of the literati ? In the course of the past 100 years, those who have carefully studied the historical course of the Theosophical Movement and the several bodies that claim their origins in and from the TS, notice that there has been an increasing tendency to swing away for the original intent and meanings. And then, added to that, have been accompanying and increasing attempts to justify such divergences, or to add to the confusion by producing fresh ones. Who among us today has HPB's knowledge and power? Who has received unmistakably the cachet of the Mahatmas? It is because of this that the ULT maintains a humble position. It very simply desires that all who wish to study THEOSOPHY have direct access to the same original source from whom modern day Theosophy has flowed. There is no reason then to have to explain away divergences. The student is put into direct touch with HPB and Theosophy as she and the Adepts recorded it. And that is far easier than trying to recreate what Original Theosophy taught, from the well-intentioned writings of HPB's students and successors, so-called. It is held that the teachings of Theosophy have always been in the world, under many ancient names. And Theosophical facts and discoveries (SD I 272-3) have formed the sole background to all the great World-religions. HPB and her Adept teachers, traced these sources for us in the many pages that she wrote (as in ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE, and in the many articles). Those who desire to verify this for themselves are invited to plunge in and work at it, as many others have done and are already doing by and for themselves. As in many other serious and honest studies, there is no substitute for thoroughness, and personally verifying every statement that is made. Theosophy does not encourage "authority," "leaders," "blind belief," or "faith." It demands that the student do this work of analysis and verification for himself. There are no short-cuts or time-savers that are trustworthy. There is a wide difference between the "Original Teachings" and attempts made by students, of any degree of knowledge, to express those "originals" as they understand their meaning. Since this is always recognized to be an important factor, the ULT meetings are framed in the form of questions and answer gatherings -- so that those who attend may offer their views, problems in understanding, and their own suggestions as to what the intent and meaning of the original writers may be -- by this method it has been found that all benefit, and a deeper understanding is arrived at. It is also recognized that since the death of HPB and WQJ there have been a succession of writers who have presented aspects of what they understood by "Theosophy." Some of these are valuable and others show a divergent interpretation which is not clear. But none of these "second level presentations" are treated as comparable with the "originals," nor are they used as substitutes, or recommended as "easy access" to individual understanding. The reason is that all students have a built-in filter, a bias that is unavoidable; and this is always determined by the areas of their own personal interests. These, in subtle ways may alter the meaning and intent of the originals in their minds, understanding, and consequently in their presentations. The ULT offers inquiring students the "safety" of being able to compare their conclusions with those of other students who, like themselves study "original teachings." It would be the height of pride and presumption to presume that any one of us, today, is fully equipped to "interpret" what HPB taught. When we can write a "SECRET DOCTRINE," then we might be entrusted to make interpretative changes, but not till then. Take for instance the writings of Robert Crosbie who founded the ULT, and set these principles in motion for all to view. Many are the students of Theosophy all over the world who value the sincerity of the applications he spoke of. Stenographic record had been made of his talks and answers at various study classes, These have been published and used by students. They are not considered "authoritative" nor would he have ever desired them to be so considered. They assist in indicating where and how a student may find in the "original" teachings those key passages and ideas that will lead him, if he decides there is value in using them, to a deeper understanding of those ORIGINAL TEACHINGS. He always pointed to HPB and WQJ. As an example: In Buddhism, no monk who has the duty of promulgating the words of the Buddha and offering advice, will offer them without, as a preliminary statement, saying: " Thus have I heard...." The ULT advocates a similar humility be practiced by all those who do work in its name for Theosophy. And hence the practice of anonymity is recommended and used in its work. It is thought advisable from the beginning to let THEOSOPHY stand forth and let the "presenter" be effaced. I am giving you this survey in answer to your queries, in case you, and others who read this, are not aware of the application of these principles in the ULT. I write this solely as my own observation and opinion, and in no way is the ULT bound by what I write here, which is the result of my personal observation of its workings for over more than 60 years. Best wishes, Dallas. ===================================== Martin Leiderman in West Los Angeles > -- 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, 06 May 1999 18:48:45 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Why the decline in interest in TS/Theosophy Thanks for your detailed response. In addition to what Dallas has commented, I think I need to further clarify some points mentioned your response and my earlier msg. In my last msg, I was addressing the specific question of attracting more membership as well as make lodges and study centers more active In trying the achieve the above, any activity which is like to be successful should, IMHO, be tried. It is like when the house is on fire, you try to do anything that can help put out the fire. It is in this context I mentioned about the traveling lecturers being very effective in the past. I believe that this appears to be so in the recent experience of other sections as well. I agree that the leadership is trying their best. Since the need to increase membership and rejuvenate the lodges and study centers is still a very important factor in the long term expansion and survival of TS, every possible idea need to be considered no matter where it comes from since no one can predict what will work and what will not work. As for my optimism, anyone who is exposed to theosophy cannot be an optimist and cannot be content with status-quo. I agree that we are all humans and hence we need to "brain storm" and look at all possible ideas which can help. As for Jerry's comment you quoted "not enough meditation" and "work on higher planes", I not able to comment since I do not have first hand knowledge of either of them. One of these days, we may come across an Initiate who can diagnose what goes on in higher planes and till then I plan to confine myself with physical plane. I am not being critical and this is just the fact as I see it. I agree that we all should try to become an expression of 3 objects. I have been trying to do so. Anyone one who personally knows me can vouch for this. As for the passing comment I made regarding the top-down and bottom-up communication, some time ago, I was surprised to find out that in the early days of TS, each lodge had a member who was the go between the GC and the lodge. So the lodge was kept fully informed of what went on in GC and the GC knew what was going on at grass roots level. This was during the days of HPB, Olcott and Judge. It appears that after Annie Besant took over, this practice was discontinued and thus started the tradition of keeping the membership in the dark about what goes on in the GC. I think this piece of historical information may interest some on this list. I hope the above would make it very clear as to where I stand on the issue of trying to increase membership and rejuvenate the lodges and study centers. MKR 07:00 PM 5/4/1999 -0700, Martin Leiderman wrote in theos-talk: >I think we all have good points about the decline in interest in joining the TS. >>>>clip<<<<<< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 19:54:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: May 8th - WHITE LOTUS DAY H. P. Blavatsky -- BENEFACTOR OF THE RACE ============ "Such she ever was; devoted to Theosophy and the Society organized to elevate the race. Her method was to deal with the mind of the century as she found it, by trying to lead it on step by step; to seek out and educate a few who, appreciating the majesty of the Secret Science and devoted to "the great orphan Humanity," would carry on her work with zeal and wisdom; to found a Society whose efforts would inject into the thought of the day, the ideas, the doctrines, the nomenclature of the Wisdom-Religion. She worked under directors who, operating from behind the scene, knew that the Society was, and was to be, the nucleus from which help might spread to all the people of the day, without thanks and without acknowledgement. She said : "We are not working merely that people may call themselves "Theosophists," but that the doctrines we cherish may affect and leaven the whole mind of this century. This alone can be accomplished by a small band of workers, who work for no human reward, no earthly recognition, but who, supported and sustained by a belief in that Universal Brotherhood of which our Masters are a part, work steadily, faithfully, in understanding and putting forth for consideration the doctrines of life and duty that have come down to us from immemorial time." ============ Wrote HPB: "Verily the Spirit in man, so long hidden from public sight, so carefully concealed and so far exiled from the arena of modern learning has at last awakened. It now asserts itself and is loudly re-demanding its unrecognized yet ever legitimate rights. It refuses to be any longer trampled under the brutal foot of materialism, speculated upon by the Churches, and made a fathomless source of income by those who have self-constituted themselves its universal custodians. The former would deny the Divine Presence any right to existence; the latter would accentuate and prove it...But the Spirit in man -- the direct, though now but broken ray and emanation of the Universal Spirit -- has at last awakened. Hitherto, while so often reviled, persecuted and abased through ignorance, ambition and greed; while so frequently turned by insane Pride "into a blind wanderer, like unto a buffoon mocked by a host of buffoons," in the realm of Delusion, it remained unheard and unheeded. Today, the Spirit in man has returned like King Lear, from seeming insanity to its senses; and, raising its voice, it now speaks in those authoritative tones to which the men of old have listened in reverential silence through incalculable ages, until deafened by the din and roar of civilization and culture, they could hear it no longer." H.P.B. ============== "If Theosophical doctrines are to be of any benefit to the race, then they must be for all classes, poor and rich, cultured and uncultured, young and old. We appeal to all who wish to raise themselves and their fellow creatures--man and beast--out of the thoughtless jog-trot of selfish everyday life. It is not thought that Utopia can be established in a day; but through the spreading or the idea of Universal Brotherhood, the truth in all things may be discovered. What is wanted is knowledge of the true spiritual condition of man, his aim and destiny. The aim and purpose of Theosophy in the world is not the advancement of a few on the intellectual plane, but the amelioration of all human affairs through the practice of Brotherhood. The theosophical doctrines show what Brotherhood is and how it is to be practiced. It holds that humanity is capable of infinite perfection both in time and quality, the saviours and adepts being held up as examples of that possibility. This is the destiny of all beings, and hence at the outset Theosophy postulates the perfectibility of the race, removes the idea of innate unregenerate wickedness, and offers a purpoe and an aim for life which is consonant with the longings of the soul and which its real nature, tending at the same time to destroy pessimism with its companion, despair. In the doctrines of Theosophy are to be found the philosophical and reasonable basis for ethics and the natural enforcement of them in practice." WQJ Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 09:39:31 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: A write up on K Here is an interesting material I found at: www.tamilnation.org/sathyam/jidduK.htm ========================================== It was a cool December evening in Madras. The year was 1974. My wife and I were visiting a friend in Egmore. Around 5 p.m., my friend said that he had to leave us to listen to a talk by Jiddu Krishnamurthy at Adyar. He asked, 'Why don't both of you come with me?'. I was reluctant. I had attempted to read some of Krishnamurthy's writings some ten years previously and had found him complex and difficult. I told my friend, 'You go ahead, we will meet you again tomorrow'. My friend's response was unexpected. He replied, 'Next to my father, Krishnamurthy is the man whom I love most.Why don't you come'. My friend was what one may call a 'good man' - kind, sincere and helpful and it was more because of the regard that we had for our friend than for Krishnamurthy, that my wife and I went to Adyar that evening. The Krishnmurthy Centre at Adyar is set in spacious surroundings. The talk was scheduled to commence at 5 p.m. in the open air under a large spreading tree. There were about 300-400 persons gathered to hear Krishnamurthy. Many were seated on the ground in front of the small raised dais reserved for the speaker. Behind those who were seated were a few rows of chairs. We sat on the chairs and awaited Krishnamurthy's arrival. Sharp at 5 p.m., a small fair man with chiselled features, dressed in white, walked briskly to the raised platform, seated himself and began talking. There were no introductions. To this day, I have not forgotten Krishnamurthy's first few words, 'If you already know what I am going to say, you need not have come.' I was lounging in my chair. After all I had come because of my friend. But, at these words, I straightened myself and sat up. Krishnamurthy's talk that evening was on the conditioned mind. He spoke about meditation and the control of thought. Who is the controller and who is the controlled, he asked. There was much that I saw for the first time that evening - it was like coming back to the beginning and knowing it for the first time. After that occasion, I heard Krishnamurthy again, this time, in Colombo in 1978. He spoke of time. Thought is time he said. Time was something that had always intrigued me. As a child, at the Galle Face Green in Colombo, I would watch with concern as ships disappeared in the curved horizon of the Indian Ocean. I wondered whether the ships had fallen off the edge. As I grew older, I learnt that the earth was not flat, that it was a globe, that there was no 'edge' and that the ships were safe. But then, as I travelled back home from the Galle Face Green at night, seated in the rear seat of my father's small car, with my parents in front, I would look up at the sky at the distant stars and wonder what was there beyond the stars - and beyond that - and beyond that... I thought that though I did not know then, I would when I 'grew up'. When I 'grew up' the answer continued to elude me. Later, I did learn something about Einstein's concept of curved space and the space time continuum. I recognised that Einstein's mathematical equations explained certain physical phenomena, but I still could not 'see' curved space - this seemed to contradict everything that I had taken for granted in the three dimensional world - a three dimensional world with time somehow 'flowing' through it. Ofcourse, if space was 'curved', then it would have no beginning or end - and there would no 'edge' to fall off. Again, given a space time continuum, there would be no beginning and end to time as well. These I could conceptualise in my mind. Cause and effect would presumably merge in a space time continuum. As Yogaswamy, the sage from Jaffna would often say in Tamil: " - everything was over long, long ago." I felt somewhat like Woody Allen in the film Annie Hall. A mournful looking Woody Allen is taken to the doctor. The doctor inquires cheerfully, 'So what is the trouble, young man?'. Woody Allen looks even more mournful and says, 'The universe is expanding - and it will explode'. I do not recall the exact words of the Doctor's response but the message was clear - 'Stop wasting your time with stupid thoughts and get on with your life.' And, here Krishnamurthy was quietly insisting that thought is time. I met Krishnamurthy with a few friends on the morning after his lecture in Colombo. We were all seated on the carpeted floor. I asked Krishnamurthy whether he would expand on that which he had said about time. He looked kindly at me, took my hands in his and started talking. It was almost like some one teaching a child to play table tennis by taking the child's hand together with the bat and showing him the feel of the stroke. Perhaps Krishnamurthy did not want to be quite as brutal as the Zen master who when asked by his pupil 'what is enlightenment' replied 'cowdung'. It is said that the pupil eventually recognised that the words of any teacher, however wise, as to what was enlightenment, would be like the dung that the cow excreted after chewing the cud. A few months later, I participated as a panelist in a discussion meeting with Krishnaji at Adyar. A Tibetan monk was another participant.I particularly remember the ending of the morning session. Krishnamurthy had talked about the computer, artificial intelligence and the brain for about 20 minutes and as he finished, the entire audience (of about 100) fell into a deep silence - and the silence was pregnant. In the silence, I was reminded of Krishnamurthy's oft quoted statement: "Reality is the interval between two thoughts". The modern rationalist discourse founded on Descartes' search for certainty and the Cartesian conclusion "I think, therefore I am", seemed somehow far removed from reality. Irreverently I thought of Peter Sellers in the film 'Party'. Sellers plays the role of an Indian and he is asked by someone: 'Who do you think you are?'. Sellers draws himself upto his full height, looks piercingly at the questioner and replies:'Sir, in India we do not think, we know who we are!' Today, the so called certainties of modernism are yielding to the more wholistic approach of the post modern world. Many have begun to grasp the force of reason in Aurobindo's remarks: "The capital period of my intellectual development was when I could see clearly that what the intellect said might be correct and not correct, that what the intellect justified was true and its opposite was also true. I never admitted a truth in the mind without simultaneously keeping it open to the contrary of it.. And the first result was that the prestige of the intellect was gone." Krishnamurthy's teachings were summarised with his approval, on 21 October 1980, in this way: "The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: 'Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique.He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. "Man has built in himself images as a fence of security, religious, political, personal. "These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness,which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual." "Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity. "Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution." "When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind." "Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence." The last time that I met with Krishnamurthy was in January 1984. I was in Madras and I went to hear him at Adyar. I was invited to join Krishnaji at lunch on the following day. It was a simple vegetarian meal and there were four or five of us at the table. I told Krishnaji that he had said something the previous evening and that I had not seen it quite in the same way before. He laughed. I continued: 'You said that the 'I' was always in the past'. Krishnaji's eyes twinkled. He said: 'It clicked, did it?' Krishnamurthy inquired about the July 1983 incidents in Sri Lanka and he was horrified to learn at first hand about some of the attacks and the resulting plight of the Tamil people. He had been thinking about visiting Sri Lanka at the end of the year but had decided against going. The conversation at the lunch table was easy and informal. Krishnaji spoke about his love for fast cars in the days of his youth. He related a joke about a Soviet astronaut. There was this Soviet astronaut, he said, who had gone to the moon and returned to Moscow. The astronaut was feted by the Soviet people and the final reception before his world tour was held in the Kremlin. The Kremlin reception rooms, with their high domes, huge chandeliers and plush red carpets were packed to capacity. The Soviet President, Brezhnev took the astronaut to a quiet corridor and asked: "Tell me, when you went up there, did you see God?". The astronaut, looked around cautiously and replied in a whisper "Yes, I did." Brezhnev said: "I thought as much, but make certain that you do not tell anybody else about this." I smiled and Krishnamurthy went on. The astronaut left on his world tour and he was given grand receptions in Germany, in England and in the United States. The final reception of the world tour was in the Vatican in Rome. The reception rooms in the Vatican with their high domes, huge chandeliers and plush red carpets were packed to capacity. The Pope invited the astronaut to a secluded corridor and asked: " Tell me, when you went up there, did you see God?" The astronaut looked around cautiously, and remembering Brezhnev's command, replied: "No, I did not see God." The Pope said: "I thought as much, but please do not tell anybody else about this." All of us at the table joined with Krishnaji in the laughter. The conversation then turned to the possibility of Krishnamurthy addressing the United Nations. Krishnaji looked at me and said: "Sir, if you were asked to address the United Nations, what would you say?". I was taken aback at the directness and suddenness of the query. I hesitated. I did not want to make a fool of myself - and appear presumptuous in his presence. I decided to take what appeared to me the cautious option. I replied: "Krishnaji, I do not think that I would have anything to say". Krishnamurthy's response was quick: "Does that mean that you have nothing to say?" And as I was trying to recover from the force of the body blow, Krishnamurthy delivered the knockout. He said:"Does that mean that you do not care?". It was a learning process. My 'modesty' was shown up to be pretentious. Many years later in 1987, after the Indo Sri Lanka Accord was signed, I was invited to speak in London on the Accord and its effect on the struggle for Tamil Eelam. I commenced my talk by relating this story about Krishnamurthy and went on to say: "I must confess that it was with some hesitation that I accepted the invitation to speak this evening. But as I reflected on that meeting with Krishnaji in Adyar, I was persuaded to accept because I cannot deny that I do care about what is happening to us as a people and because it would be wrong for me to say that I have nothing to say about the Tamil struggle and the Indo Sri Lanka Accord." To me, Jiddu Krishnamurthy will always be the essential gnana yogi, the man who denied that he was a messiah but who spoke and wrote for more than fifty years thereafter, to ever growing audiences and who insisted to the end: "No man from outside can make you free... No one holds the Key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity...". ================================ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 15:28:08 GMT From: "David Green" Subject: ULTese---No Leaders, No Officers, No Rules, No Members, No Organisation In a message dated 5/8/99, Richard Taylor, a ULT associate, wrote: >This is just silly. The ULT has definite leaders, and I can provide names >for each lodge on request. The only thing special about ULT is that it's >leaders are self-chosen, not elected, and generally don't try to coerce other >people. But certainly, there are distinct and well-known individuals who are >in charge of book and magazine production, who choose the speakers each week, >who answer correspondence, etc. This is not a criticism on my part. But ULT >associates themselves, and their non-ULT observers, need to get over this >idea that ULT is a society without "leaders." It never has been, it never >will be. As Martin observes, there is no way it could function without >decision-makers and action-takers. > >As a feminist friend once told me, even in the non-hierarchical women's >meetings she attends, where everyone sits in a circle and thinks of >themselves as equal, there still has to be someone who says "Let's sit in a >circle." Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Taylor, you are one of the few U.L.T. associates who will admit publicly that the U.L.T. has "definite leaders". Of course, anyone who knows anything about the real world, must realize the ULT has "decision-makers and action-takers." But it is part of the ULT "word play" to deny that it has leaders. This "word play" is even extended to other areas. Observe what Mr. Dallas Tenbroeck wrote recently in excellent ULTese---- "The DECLARATION of the ULT is the sole document on which a group of self-constituted volunteers meets to study Theosophy, and where personal affiliation is not asked about. There are no rules and regulations nor are there any 'officers.' " There may not be "written" rules and regulations but undoubtedly there must be "unwritten", "informal" rules and regulations, i.e. dos and don'ts that govern ULT groups and meetings. Again there may not be "elected" officers and officials. But, to mention just one example, there probably is one person (or just a few persons) in the ULT Los Angeles Lodge who handles money, deposits, payment of bills, etc. This person acts the role of "treasurer" whether he has the official title or not. Not every U.L.T. associate is authorized to handle ULT finances, right? I have seen Mr Tenbroeck and others also claim that ULT doesn't have members (they really have "associates") and the ULT isn't an organization. It's an "association" or just an "informal organization". Mr Tenbroeck's "word play" can be observed in his words--- "a group of self-constituted volunteers meets to study Theosophy" See what Mr Tenbroeck is claiming--- There are no members ---just "self-constituted volunteers." What does this phrase really mean? Why do so many U.L.T. associates indulge in this strange "word play"? And what is most interesting is that the vast majority of ULT members (whooops! I meant to say "associates") never realize that they are engaging in word-play. All of this reminds me of Clintonese, i.e. President Clinton's redefining of words like "alone," "is" and "sexual relations." Mr TenBroeck who apparently is a master of ULTese can also write with straight face that *other* Theosophical Societies indulge in "politics" but not the ULT. What is the definition of "politics" in ULTese? I'm inclined to believe that ULTese is used in order to distinguish the United Lodge of Theosophists from other theosophical organizations, in fact, to put the ULT in a special (superior?) position. Even outsiders sometime disseminate information in ULTese. Dr. James Santucci in his 1998 article on the ULT wrote---- "After Crosbie's death. . . no leader was recognized but John Garrigues was acknowledged as a major figure in the Los Angeles U.L.T. until his death in 1944, followed by Grace Clough, Henry Geiger, and, presently, Mr. Robert McOwen." ["Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions," Prometheus Press, 1998, p. 504] Here we have "major figures" but not "leaders". What is the real difference between a major figure and a leader? And who decided that there would be a "major figure"? More importantly, for example, when Mr Henry Geiger died, how did Mr. Robert McOwen become the "major figure"? Was there a "vote"? Who "appointed" Mr McOwen to this "position"? And exactly what are the "powers", "duties" and "responsibilities" of Mr McOwen? Would Mr Tenbroeck admit and acknowledge that Mr McOwen is the "major figure"? Or would Mr Tenbroeck insist that Mr McOwen is just like all other ULT associates, i.e. a "mere" associate. Again, Dr Santucci lapses into ULTese--- "No leader exists in the U.L.T., nor is there any formal organization although the Theosophy Company serves as the fiduciary agent for U.L.T. publications." No leader, no formal organization. I guess Mr Tenbroeck and Dr. Santucci need to define what they mean by "formal". Having been to ULT Los Angeles headquarters 3 times in the last 6 months, I got the distinct impression that there was an "organization"---whether defined as formal or informal. BTW, I notice this morning that the new "Theosophy" magazine has deleted all references to the United Lodge of Theosophists. The only "organization" mentioned is the Theosophy Company? Why is this? I'm very intrigued by ULTese. I may compile a dictionary of such terms. David Green _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 12:23:39 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: ULTese---No Leaders, No Officers, No Rules, No Members, No Organisation In a message dated 5/9/99 10:28:25 AM Central Daylight Time, davidgreen@hotmail.com writes: > > I'm very intrigued by ULTese. I may compile a dictionary of such terms. > > David Green > Hmmm, if you are going to compose that kind of dictionary, maybe you should start off composing a guide to White Housese and IRSese in order to have some money in the bank. Then compose the guide to ULTese. :-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 9 May 1999 12:33:30 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: ULTese---No Leaders, No Officers, No Rules, No Members, No Organisation In a message dated 5/9/99 10:28:25 AM Central Daylight Time, davidgreen@hotmail.com writes: > Mr TenBroeck who apparently is a master of ULTese can also write with > straight face that *other* Theosophical Societies indulge in > "politics" but not the ULT. What is the definition of "politics" in > ULTese? I'm inclined to believe that ULTese is used in order to > distinguish the United Lodge of Theosophists from other theosophical > organizations, in fact, to put the ULT in a special (superior?) > position. > Well, since there is no explicitly defined organizational structure, I suspect the following model applies. It usually applies to those groups who do not wish to acknowledge to others, themselves, or both that they have "politics" AND who seek to conceal lines of responsibility and/or power by having no paper trail or formal organization. Thus, the mafia distinguishes "politics" (individual Italian-Americans privately involved in Democratic Catholic groups or Knights of Columbus) from "family affairs" (the REAL politics of a family having the same status as a nation state - a legacy from Roman, feudal, and Renaissance social organization). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 13:28:53 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Internet on telephone Here is something that those skeptics about Internet/e-mail need to read. This seem to indicate the direction in which Internet e-mail is moving and is going to be an indispensable means of quick and cheap communication. Of course many who grew up in pre computer area and clinging on to outmoded means may find it difficult to understand and accept. ============================================= US West offers Net phone Baby Bell says phones will allow access to e-mail and the Internet May 10, 1999: 9:41 a.m. ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - U S West Inc., the Denver-based Baby Bell, said Monday it soon will offer phones that allow customers to send email and access the Internet without using a computer. The new phones will target consumers who find computers too intimidating or expensive. U S West (USW) estimates about 50 percent of consumers have never surfed the Internet or sent e-mail. "With these new phones, we're going to blow open the Internet revolution to everybody by moving e-mail and Web access to something people are already comfortable with -- the telephone," U S West Chief Executive Sol Trujillo said. The "Web Phones" operate like traditional phones, but they also have a color screen that allows customers to navigate the Internet just by pointing to and touching certain icons. The screen system works similarly to an automatic teller machine at a bank. Users also can send e-mail by typing a message on a built-in keyboard Unlike many computers which are bulky and impractical to move, the Web Phones work in any standard phone jack and can be shifted around the house as users move from the kitchen to the living room or home office. The wireline "Web Phones," made by Alcatel Alsthom, will be available in the fall. The phones cost between $300 and $400, industry analysts said. Users can subscribe to any Internet service provider of their choice to get access to the World Wide Web. In addition to the Web Phones, U S West also will sell wireless phones that can receive, display and store e-mail and access Internet sites offering information on financial news, sports headlines, weather and travel tips. The wireless "Thin Phones," made by Qualcomm Inc (QCOM), will be available in mid-May. Access to the Internet through U S West's Internet service, USWEST.net, will be available later this year. The Thin Phones weigh about four ounces and cost $99, U S West said. U S West, the dominant local phone company in 14 states from Minnesota to Washington, will hold its annual shareholders meeting Tuesday, May 11, at the Hudson Theater in New York City. US West offers Net phone From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 08:20:48 +0100 (British Summer Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: A write up on K > Here is an interesting material I found at: > www.tamilnation.org/sathyam/jidduK.htm > ========================================== THANKS! Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 08:25:41 +0100 (British Summer Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: ULTese---No Leaders, No Officers, No Rules, No Members, No Organisation Hi, > I'm very intrigued by ULTese. I may compile a dictionary of such terms. sounds like a good idea. Indeed ULTese sounds interesting. Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:36:14 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: ULTese---No Leaders, No Officers, No Rules, No Members, No Organisation > > I'm very intrigued by ULTese. I may compile a dictionary of such terms. > > sounds like a good idea. Indeed ULTese sounds interesting. > Really? Why does it? Most certainly it might provide a giggle. But why focus on the ULT? *Every* Theosophical organization has developed its own little set of code words, its own surface to mask the underlying politics. In fact every religion has. In fact, can anyone name me a single organization or group existing anywhere in the *world* that doesn't develop its own little sub-vocabulary? That *doesn't* have underlying and usually unspoken politics operating? That *doesn't* present one face in its public pronouncements, and another behind closed doors? Shall we all now, because one fellow has spent countless hours pointing out the patently obvious, stand back in awe at not only his profound insights, but also at the wonderful mocking humor he'll now produce for us? I am all for the gadflys of organizations - they *do* provide a useful function. Honest and well-founded criticisms help organizations grow and thrive. If, *if*, *IF* the person or people *also* do the work of suggesting *alternatives*. If they are *also* willing to spend as much time and effort *building up* that which they intend to tear down. *ANYONE*, any intellectual lightweight, any meanspirited coward, can criticize or rip apart *any* group - there isn't a single institution on earth without flaws. The difference between a true, positive *critic* that winds up helping an organization, and a brutish street thug that does nothing but take swings at it with a bat, is that when a critic says "here's what's wrong", they also take the time and trouble to *also* say "And here's how to make it right". For every hour they spend writing critical essays, they spend another hour championing well thought-out, viable positive alternatives. It is *way* easier to criticize than it is to actually discover solutions - and indeed, even if the criticisms are valid, and the alternative is viable, they may be ignored or even actively opposed by the organization. But making viable suggestions, painting a detailed picture of how things *could be* is the only ethical way to *earn the right* to criticize. For every hundred boneheads that can smash a glass vase to bits, there is one artist actually capable of creating one. If one *is* such an artist, willing to put the time and energy and committment into making a *new* vase, then by all means smash away. If all you can do, however, is smash - not with the intention of improving anything, and not offering any significant suggestions for how to make things better - then you are nothing but the intellectual equivilent of a poorly behaved teenager, vandelizing windows with bricks. Has this fellow's posts caused any of us to want to *help* the ULT? To *promote* an alternative vision, either of the ULT or Theosophy? So far as I am able to tell, the ULT members are for the most part quite content with the organization as it is. It is a small group. They do not proselytize, and seem to do little other than hold a particular view of what Theosophy is, and pursue studies harmonious with that view with each other. Its always seemed somewhat conservative for my tastes, but I'll tell ya, I've been on this discussion list since the first few months of its inception, and save for one or two exceptions, have never seen a ULT member attempt to tell me what I ought to think. They do, on the whole, speak their point of view at great length, but almost always as something offered, not as something insisted upon. If you leave them alone, they leave you alone. I've never seen any motive in any of them other than just wanting to sort of meet and study a particular version of Theosophy - are open to those with similar tastes, and simply polite to those that don't share them. Since their *critic* has raised the question of motives, since *he* has claimed that they say one thing and do another - well then, what are *his* motives? What is behind the mean-spirited attacks? What drives him? Clearly not a better vision of the ULT - in fact, he doesn't even seem to have ever been a member. Is his motive to *improve* the ULT? Completely destroy it? Or just throw rocks at it? If it *is* to improve it, then why? What is his interest if he is not even a member? He claims, in essence, that the ULT has foundations that are suspect, and that its members claim it is one thing while it is really another. Are the foundations for *his* campaign not just a little suspect? Does it not seem as though there is some ulterior motive in *it*? I'd invite him to make his case. As clearly as he demands of the ULT. To expain for our edification exactly what his purpose is, exactly what he intends to achieve with his criticisms. To explain what his motives are, where his interest comes from - especially if he's not a member attempting to reform an organization to which he belongs. To share with us what time an effort he has spent getting to know the ULT membership, attending its meetings, working to build it up. To give us - after his barrage of criticisms of what is wrong - an equally in-depth proposal for how to set things right. I would enjoy knowing a bit more about the ULT - from both its supporters and its reformers (both always exist in healthy organizations) - but have absolutely *no* interest in mindless criticism grounded in what seem to be ulterior and bad motives, and intended towards no particular end. And I *certainly* have no interest in a "dictionary of ULTese" ... which, clever as it might make the author feel, certainly will serve no end other than to try to deride and belittle, and build nothing up in the place of what is torn down. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:27:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: The Monadic Source and Progress = request for help on anthropogenesis - Martin L. May 12th 1999 Dallas offers: The search for the nature of our Monad and of its progress through the evolutionary scheme of this manvantara is a very interesting study of the doctrines of anthropogenesis as offered in the SECRET DOCTRINE. It covers areas that modern Science has not penetrated, because they are (sadly) still completely tied to the merely physiological fossils that are uncovered here and there, and on which they have sought to base their reconstruction of the antiquity and origin of man. The SECRET DOCTRINE refers to the studies of the skeleton of Man compared to that of the Apes conducted by the scientist de Quatrefages. He showed that Man was "primitive" in the sense that man's skeleton had not been specialized. The skeleton of the Apes showed that their skeleton had been modified by development along particular lines (arboreal, or terrene) and if anything, they had been derived from the more "primitive" man-skeleton. (In other words, they descended from man.) The second thing is that the brain capacity (at maturity) of the greatest Apes is around 30-34 cubic inches, while that of the smallest humans (at maturity) started at about 84 cubic inches and the average was about 90-94 cubic inches. [ References in SD to de Quatrefages work: SD I 487 II 56fn 87fn 651-4 662 681 711 ] [ References on the Brain: SD II 168fn 193fn 522-3 646fn 661 676-7 682 686 Why does the SD speak of 7 Egoic or Monadic divisions -- perhaps because in man as in nature there are seven aspects that can be developed simultaneously and none is superior to any of the others. All have to develop in harmony together or there will be abnormalities. Apparently one of the tasks of Karma is to keep this kind of balance and make sure that all evolution is shared. This is indeed a voyage of discovery using the INDEX of the SD one can trace the following Martins question is based on SD II p. 1 at the bottom The MONADS , the true Mankind are of seven types, qualities, natures. Some description of this is to be found in SD I 571-4. There the relation of the Monad in us to one of the 7 Dhyani Buddhas is offered for consideration. On SD I 108 we note that this relates to the 7 Dhyani Buddhas which are the PROTOTYPES of all the differentiations in our Manvantara. They are the primordial SEVEN and they work in close cooperation everywhere. All MONADS are related to one or the other of the seven Primaries, but also, they share in the qualities of the rest and the mystery of the 7 x 7 or 49 "fires" can be solved. In man the potentials of each of the 7 are present, but in each human Monad, one is predominant. ( see SD I 373-4 ) This, when developed, becomes a "key" to the rest, for all are "brothers" universally in fact. One might say that there are 7 techniques which can be used to reach "Perfection" -- which seem to be enshrined in 7-fold Nature and 7-fold Man -- a teaching that is a real KEY for us to grasp and apply universally as well as to our own self-devised evolution -- our particular "technique" has to be developed. Each of the "Seven Principles" has its "highest aspect" and this is the link between "our Monad" and that of the DHYANI BUDDHA who is our "Parent STAR." It is therefore hinted that in the progress of attaining "Perfection," each Monad devises as well as "follows" its own path. It has its own permanent link with the Dhyani Buddha of which "Host" it is indissolubly a part (SD I 570-1). As its destiny is to experience all the possible combinations of evolution (as well as involution), its journey as an "eternal Pilgrim" takes it through all the 49 (and even 49 x 7) stages of possibilities. It has the presence of each of the other 6 Dhyani Buddhas potential within it, and therefore can make "connections" universally when it becomes "wise" enough to do this. These propositions have to first grasped intellectually and then tested with the mind, inquiring if they are universally probable. In the Stanzas of Dzyan that form the basis for the 2nd Vol. of the SD, the word "race" is used as not only the great periods of time in which some one particular permutation of knowledge, and wisdom is developed by mankind as a "host," but also, it indicates which aspect of our Nature (which of the human Principles is presently and naturally predisposed to take advantage --for all human beings -- of this particular time in the great Manvantaric cycle), has the best opportunity of development. As an example we are presently, as humanity, in the 4th Round (corresponding to Kama) also the 4th Globe (corresponding to Kama-deva), we are in the 5th Race (the "Aryan" - or "noble race" corresponding to Manas) and the 5th Sub-race of the 5th Race -- which implies that the potential from altering "Lower Manas (Kama-Manas) into "Higher Manas" (Buddhi-Manas) is available at this time if we WILL to do this. In SD II the 7 "races" of men are said to be born SIMULTANEOUSLY and scattered by Karma all over the World according to their natural inherent "dual" natures (Kama and Manas -- which are cemented together -- SD II 79-80, 241. (also SD II 1 to 12, 77, 91-2, 329, 611) On SD II 241 it is shown how the Monad (SD I 181, 174-5) -- the 7th Principle "ATMA" (bonded to Buddhi) in manifestation -- belongs to one of the 7 Hosts of the Dhyani Buddhas and it is the "fire" of one of the 7 aspects of the SUN (representative of the CENTRAL SPIRITUAL SUN -- That which in manifestation represents the ABSOLUTENESS -- which cements the Buddhi to Atma and brings Manas and Kama together on the lower level. On SD II 189 the 7 Rishis (Dhyani Buddhas) or (Dhyan Chohans) are mentioned [ of course ATMA is not individualized but is always one with the whole ATMIC PRINCIPLE and that is Universal and impersonal as well as eternal ]. These concepts cannot be viewed with our limited "lower Manas;" but only when it becomes tranquil, in meditative retirement, when we can contemplate the metaphysical meaning and implication of what the SD is conveying. Physical "limits" in time space and motion have to give way to the universal concepts of forces, and powers which cannot be placed in any "location," yet are inherently part of the contemplative mind that has quieted the body and the lower desires so that it may reflect on "universals." In a way we could call it the "drop" meditating on the potentials of the "ocean." On p. SD II 248 bottom it is shown why the process of embodiment of the Monad occurs (see also SD II 255fn 94 128 233fn) I do hope this may be of help. It is of course only my view and uses perhaps only a small portion of what is available through the use of the INDEX of the SD, In the INDEX, to the SD, I first referred to Race, then Seven, then Dhyani Buddha, Rishi, Fires, Sun, Monad, Kamadeva, Atma, -- always trying to find how SEVEN was said to be related to these. . Best wishes, Dallas Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc.net =============================== -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Eldon B Tucker > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 7:21 PM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Theos-World request for help on anthropogenesis >From: Martin Leiderman >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; U; PPC) >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: theos-talk@theosophy.com >Subject: Help on Anthropogenesis > > >In the SD, Vol. 2 Preliminary Notes we read: > >" ... the Secret Doctrine postulates three new propositions .... it teaches: >a) the simultaneous evolution of seven human groups on seven different portions >of our globe...." > > >I would like to know how others interpret this propositions. > >Does the word group means races, sub-races??? >The word simultaneous is also a bit confusing. > >Thanks. > >Martin Leiderman >in West Los Angeles > -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 18:06:30 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Secrets It is interesting to watch the evening news which detailed how an ex-spy in Britain has exposed a list of British spies, which according to the news report, puts the spies in grave danger. The ex-spy was fired from the British Intelligence and he wrote a book about the spies. This landed him in prison for violating British law. Finally when came out of prison he posted the list. Even though the site was shut down within hours, it was too late. The info was duplicated in what is known as mirror sites, some of which I think are outside the British control. So the info continues on the Internet. There was a similar situation with Intel. There was an anti-Intel site and when Intel tried to shut it down using legal manoeuvres, it was moved out to Germany within hours and it is very difficult to shut down a site under German law. All this brings into focus, real Occult Secrets. It may be recalled how in HPB's case, one of her principles was kept in Tibet so that even accidentally forbidden secrets are let out. The Adepts knew the serious nature of the secrets and the extreme need to keep them from being divulged even accidentally and hence they had their own technique to handle it. We frequently discuss about the various "occult" information which are divulged only within pledged groups. Any recorded or even orally communicated information is prone to divulgement. All that is needed is one frustrated individual having access to Internet. So this brings to the basic issue of keeping secret information secret. I feel that no real occult information can be communicated by tradition methods of communication. It seems to me that one has understand them oneself much like growing into it. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 22:55:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Is Observation Such a Bad Thing? May 13 Dear Gerry Druckerman: Your observation evoked in me the following considerations and response and I hope you may consider these and see if you find them to be useful. They are of course my own views developed over many years of work in Science and with Theosophy to help me also. While we may not be schooled in the intricacies of modern Science and its many descriptive terms and expressions, there are certain things that are basic to all study and this includes "Science." For the moment let us forget the terms, which if necessary we can acquire a facility in using them if we need it -- it is their special kind of "short-hand" and lets them communicate with each other more quickly. We do the same thing in Theosophy, for if we study the basic books like THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY by Mme. Blavatsky, we will be able to master the Theosophical "short-hand" and most of the important terms used in its study. Basically of course Science and Theosophy study Nature. Our modern Science has arisen in the last 4 to 600 years and in the last 200 has flowered in terms of detail, complexity and its ability to probe into the physical aspects of nature's present manifestation. One might say that modern Science is "WESTERN OCCULTISM." Much of the training is Science is to enable a precise descriptive vocabulary to develop. Of course, to the average person, this sounds like a foreign tongue. But, basically it is communications. The rest is learning the formulae that express those aspects of Nature's Laws which they have, on analysis, reduced to measured observations. All these things, whether Science or Theosophy, take some time to acquire facility in. But to live the life of a reasonable person, does not require a vocabulary, but only good-will for others, and hence, in Theosophy, BROTHERHOOD is held to be basic. If one desires to be of service to others, and to himself, he has to learn the laws of living, and this requires study and then application of those principles that are found to be reasonable, fair and universally true. It should be noted that the measurements we currently use are arbitrary and pertain to the conventions Science (and Government) has adopted almost universally these days, in this era. In other, more ancient times, they used different measurements -- these can be found in the ancient languages of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Assyria, Chaldea, Persia, China, India, Central and South America, etc... even today we find that there are two widely used and intraconvertible systems -- the one based on the metric system (gram, meter, second), and the other based (British and American) on "foot, pound, second." If this simplified view is grasped, the rest is simply the use of vocabulary and nomenclature to describe what one is able to see happening in Nature or in experiment. Nature has her own measuring tools and bases. It is said that one of the things that the Adept learns in "the ultimate divisions of Time." But we are not yet given an idea of what that is. Obviously "Time" involves Karma-- universally, and therefore the "time" of any one Universe will differ from others. What is named DURATION is of course timelessness. INFINITUDE and VIBRATION (Motion) are the other two indefinite measures (from our point of view). One other observation of a general character ought to be made. Our modern science is developing its powers to measure based on increasing refinement of instrumentation. it seeks to probe simultaneously the "infinitely small" (atoms and sub-atomic particles and their rules and laws) and the "infinitely great" -- the ever and increasingly broad and unfathomable UNIVERSE -- our Earth being only a very minor (and probably quite unimportant) member of that. This may bruise our pride and self-importance, but that is a fact. However we have to deal with our selves, our ideas, fancies, aspirations, desires, ambitions and place these into juxtaposition with REALITIES. Modern Science is confronted with the very few traces of really ancient knowledge and wisdom and presumes that "Science" and "Technology" in the past was very limited. This is however no more true that the scattered fossils it uses to derive concepts of the evolutionary development of the FORM of man are a sound basis for deciding (in theory) that Man, as a form, is derived from an Ape body; or that animal intelligence produced human intelligence and therefore the ape gave way to the savage and the savage to our civilized community -- and there are savages living in the Amazon or New Guinea and Central Africa which are a very great contrast to us her in America or Europe, or any Modern City. Theory should be strongly dissociated from FACT. One more idea strikes me as important: Theosophy is largely HISTORY. The great books ISIS UNVEILED and the SECRET DOCTRINE are a record that bridges the gaps caused in the past by the destruction of the great Libraries -- and this serves to make mythology, lore and legend as well as the terms used in ancient religions and philosophies of which we have some record readable and understandable. If Theosophy is history, THEN SCIENCE OUGHT TO PICK UP THE INFORMATION AND USE IT. Of course, then, there would be little honor or pride in "DISCOVERY." But what is the use of that unless it gives tenure and position for those Egos that are full of pride and ambition ? Some of the basics include for everyone, scientific man or layman, cultured, scholarly, learned savage, or ignorant: 1. Mathematics. 2. Measurement. 3. Truth in reporting and accuracy -- errors and exceptions to be faithfully reported. 4. Relationship of observations -- theory about laws of recurrence or analogy. NOTE: Theories should be so proclaimed so the student is aware of potential changes. New discovery may alter and current "theory." 5. Inter-relation of all aspects of Science. Nature is entirely inter-related. 6. NATURE contains all. SCIENCE only studies Nature and her laws. 7. Mind is independent of sentiment, anticipation, Ego--personal ambition and pride, and is capable of investigating all things intellectually and without any limits at all. It would be PREJUDICE and not knowledge to assign or pre-suppose that there are limits to KNOWING or MEASUREMENT, or anything. "Man is a FREE AGENT" ... but he cannot escape his past Karma (SD I 639) 8. Existence of the Mind proves universality -- and our relation to everything else in the Universe -- "Each MONAD is the mirror of every other, and of its Universe." [ SD I 631-2 ] 9. The UNIVERSE is embodied LIFE and Consciousness--The ultimate cause and Aim of evolution is for EVERY MONAD (a detached drop of the ONE ABSOLUTE) to rise through EVERY EXPERIENCE to a complete and universal PERCEPTION of the WHOLE. (After Earth-life experience and "graduation," What ?) 10. The monad (ATMA-BUDDHI) is the indestructible immortal Eternal Pilgrim. It will always exist. [SD I 632 top traces the 3 stages of the MONAD as it emerges from the undifferentiated MONADIC ESSENCE under the impulsion of the law of KARMA -- for which there is no limit in time, space or motion. IT IS. 11. The whole of Occultism is based on the "INFINITE DIVISIBILITY OF THE ATOM." [ SD I 519-20 ] This is basic. "The MONAD IS THE SOUL OF THE ATOM," [ SD I 629, 632 ]. 12. All these things can be proved only SUBJECTIVELY as they are only OBJECTIVE to the image creating capability of the MIND, and that is INFINITE. The magical power of our IMAGINATION has to be tethered to facts, and not fancies. 13. Materialism in terms of personal experience and KAMA-MANAS has to be recognized in us and around us. It has to be dropped by an effort of WILL. This allows the realities of the REAL UNIVERSE to appear and serve as the BASIS for our thought. 14. Provable realities are fundamentally: 1. WE EXIST -- AS A POINT OF CONSCIOUSNESS. 2. THE UNIVERSE EXISTS -- AS ALL THAT IS "OUT THERE." 3. There is an ever on-going relationship between US and the UNIVERSE this is what we are constantly studying and putting into our memory for future use and comparison. 15. General Conclusions; 1. Universe IS everywhere and self-existent. GOD is not a "PERSON." GOD IS THE UNIVERSE. PANTHEISM IS A FACT. 2. WE, as MEN-MINDS, mirror potentially every aspect of the UNIVERSE. 3. WE are ultimately OMNIPOTENT but we cannot exercise this faculty without being absolutely HARMLESS to all other BEINGS and especially to other Humans. Hence Altruism, Impersonality, Benevolence, Brotherhood are mandatory ETHICAL needs. 4. EVOLUTION is universal [ apply mentally the statement found at the top of p. 632, SD I : "They say that what is called... to p. 633: ...and both are--MAYA." 5. WE are true IMMORTALS. WE are learning how to behave as IMMORTALS, and this begins simply at home, business and everywhere where we go. We need not run off to some distant place. Karma has placed us right where we are needed and where our present DUTY lies. If these can be constantly kept in mind and used as a basis for living, we will find that many erroneous ideas and personal practices stop. The IMPERSONAL and DIVINE MAN inside us will be able to view our PERSONALITY for what it is worth, and will be able to STOP IT (and especially the bad habits we have developed and which we observe without even thinking of them), from continuing to hamper our future progress. It is not necessarily what we "like" or what we "enjoy" that is a goal for us to establish and work for; but, rather to decide what the future of our IMMORTAL AND REAL SELF ought to be, to be of maximum assistance to itself IN ASSOCIATION WITH OTHERS. In this way our "PERSONALITY" alters itself to more closely represent and embody in physical life the DIVINE MONAD that is within each one of us. "The closest place to GOD is in our own Hearts." We can have no PERSONAL growth WITHOUT, SIMULTANEOUSLY, BEING OF BENEFIT TO OTHERS. Our world, and the place that we occupy, is COOPERATIVE. We are always INTER-ACTIVE and dependent for our physical lives on many other aspects of Nature: air, water, food, clothing and shelter, etc... Therefore we find our true duty to be close at hand, as a service we can offer to others, and not some fanciful creation of a deluded lower-mind that envisages itself as a King who can "enjoy" without responsibility to our local universe. I do not know if that will be of any help, but it is that which I have found helps me and my thinking. To get back to Science: this is, I think, the right kind of "scientific" approach to learning, to our present capacities, and to what we can do for others. Compartmentalizing, and thinking of our possible limits is of very little help. If we recognize our universality in potential, and the immensity of TIME that we are going to be able to consciously dispose of, as IMMORTALS, we will be well occupied forever more. It is important to realize that a cessation of activity, of repose, and the general idea that Heaven is an "escape hatch" from this earth's vicissitudes, is a fancy. It has no basis in reason or reality. There is no final and ultimate Nirvana or Moksha or heaven--these are only ideas of a very long rest--with no responsibilities, and perhaps, great boredom because of lack of 'change.' But there is, instead, WISDOM and an ever developing field in which we can work intelligently and with the purpose of serving others as they serve and help us, and how each, in turn strives consciously or unconsciously, to reach the stage of understanding that we are now able to use and which gives us a glimpse of the immense vistas before us, in terms of experience, time, and space to live in and through. All good wishes, as always, Dal Dallas TenBroeck dalval@nwc.net =================================== -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Gerry Druckerman > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 10:46 AM > To: theos-talk@theosophy.com > Subject: Re: Theos-World Is Observation Such a Bad Thing? While it is true to some scientist , theosophy is theory, and to others worthless speculation, it is to my understanding that to Adepts it is science. For those of us attracted to theosophy, it resonates to our rational mind, appeals to our intuitive nature, and in some small areas we verify aspects of it in our own life (science). When we look at the present day science, the great majority of us cannot duplicate and verify much of what is proposed. It seems that puts us in a similar position of depending on our resources of rational mind and intuition. Gerry From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:27:30 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Control & Sensorship In the past, people and governments and organizations -- business, religious, spiritual and other -- and people with vested interests -- routinely controlled and sensored and/or distorted the information and facts that reached the public. Common reason given is for the protection of the world, country, religion, cult, organization and the recipient person. Even so called religious and spiritual organizations resorted to this. You can happen even today, only if you care to carefully look. It is how many of the sacred literature was kept by the select few from the public -- the control led to discrimination based on various factors. The first major breakthrough came when printing was invented. There was an exponential increase in the printed material being available to the lay man/woman. The next major breakthrough is when Internet took off. Internet broke all the traditional lines of control overnight. All that one needs to see is what happened last week. I hope those who have spent their lifetimes in controlling/editing/distorting/withholding information for whatever justification they have in their mind, do not get a heart attack by seeing how Internet is breaking down all the traditional barriers and rules. Here is the story that some may be interested to read. mkr ========================= How secrets slip through the Net The Internet helped pierce the government's veil of secrecy The British Government's failure to stop the publication of a list of alleged Secret Intelligence Service or MI6 agents has turned out to be a classic study of the power of the Internet to overcome controls. Although the government was successful in closing some sites, they had already been copied and rapidly appeared on mirror sites. Indeed, the more the authorities tried to suppress the information, the more sought after it became. The treasure hunters in cyberspace became determined to find their prize and they did so. The question has to be asked as to whether the publicity given by the government to the list in the first place only increased interest in it. The British Government has publicly accused a dismissed MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, of providing the 116 names, and it appealed to the British media not to publish either the names or the websites on which they were displayed. This appeal was put out by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, which is sometimes known as the D notice committee. The committee - run by two retired Royal Navy officers, Rear Admiral David Pulvertaft and his deputy, Commander Francis Ponsonby - "advises" the media on security issues. The appeal has been generally complied with, but they have been in turn badly holed by the stealth tactics of the Internet. It started when Richard Tomlinson opened a website with GeoCities, which allows users to set up personal home pages for free. GeoCities removed the site saying that Tomlinson had violated its usage policy, but he was able to repost the site to another address on GeoCities. The California-based hosting service closed the second site by Wednesday evening, but not before it was copied and mirrored to other sites on the Internet. This site named several MI6 officers previously accused by Tomlinson of having information about Princess Diana's fatal crash in Paris. These names were not new. They had been released in an affidavit Tomlinson had delivered before the investigating judge, saying that the driver of her car Henri Paul, who also died in the crash, had been an MI6 informer. The site also promised to publish a longer list of MI6 officers, but did not in fact do so, following a court order in Switzerland where Tomlinson now lives. The list did emerge, however, elsewhere. The Executive Intelligence Review, a magazine published by maverick political figure and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, displayed the list briefly on its web site. The EIR site said that the information had come unsolicited by e-mail from an "honest man who had left MI6" (presumably Tomlinson). Shortly afterwards, this site, too, was closed. The editor of EIR, Peter Sigerson, told the BBC that this was on legal advice after a request from the British government. But EIR had already, on Wednesday, sent out 9,000 copies of its magazine with the list in it, said Mr Sigerson. It was also too late, because the EIR site had already been copied and mirrored elsewhere, and it is here that a defining characteristic of the Internet is shown. Whenever an interesting site appears, you can be sure that someone, somewhere will copy it in seconds. In this, case several people did. And one of them sent it to a New York architect named John Young, who runs a group dedicated to publishing security and intelligence documents on its website. Mr Young told the BBC that he had circulated a request for the list and in due course it arrived by e-mail. It was a copy of the EIR site. He said he did not think the people named were at risk, and that such information should be published in any case. It was not long before other sites around the world began displaying the list. The cat was not only out of the bag, it was running away fast. *** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:41:05 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Control & Sensorship - 2 Continuing on the issue of how Internet is moving like a juggernaut in breaking down the traditional walls and methods used to control/edit/distort/sensor/ information -- all kinds, political, religious, spiritual, business etc. -- here is another writeup which is very informative. The anonymity that Internet provides is another twist to the whole issue of who is behind the information dissemination. Not only anyone using a made up name can setup a website in minutes and no one will know who the real person behind the name is. The same thing is possible even in newsgroups and maillists. You do not know whom you are dealing with. In a theosophical newsgroup or a maillist, it is possible for some fundamentalist pretending to be a theosophist can be discussing issues the motive being not to help theosophy or rather work against it. There are many browser based free e-mail address providers and in minutes on can set up an address with a made up name. It would be interesting to watch the onward move of the Juggernaut Internet radically changing the information communication and dissemination environment. As I have always felt, we have not seen anything yet about the impact of Internet. I mkr ======================= Easy to publish, 'almost impossible' to remove Uploading a Website onto a new ISP can take just minutes The UK Government has been playing cyber catch-up with renegade spy Richard Tomlinson since the end of last month. As soon as they shut down the former MI6 man's Swiss-based Website - because he was believed to have revealed the identities of other spies in it - he merely uploaded the site onto another internet service provider (ISP), Geocites. Even though Geocites soon became aware of the injunction taken against the Swiss-based site, and promptly evicted Mr Tomlinson from its cyberspace, theoretically it could only be a matter of time before he sets up again with another ISP. "It is incredibly easy to set up a Website, especially with free ISPs," said Nicholas Ispanayis, of Freedom2Surf. "Free ISPs can allow you to have your site up and running within minutes - and it can be very difficult to know who has set up the Website if they have registered online. You could very easily give false personal details in the registration procedure. "Basically, anyone can log on to a free ISP, provide any kind of identity, and set up a site. If that site contains illegal information, it may be shut down, but then it is very quick and easy to upload all the code onto another ISP." ISPs are only too aware of the problem. The vast majority of the Internet's bad press comes from the relatively small amount of illegal information which is published on it. Nicholas Lansman, General Secretary of the Internet Service Providers Association, says the industry is making great strides in the area of self-regulation. He said: "The Internet Watch Foundation has a reporting system which it acts very quickly upon. "There is a hotline, and if users come across sites which they think contain illegal or unsuitable material, then they report it and it is investigated. "Wherever necessary, a site will be removed, and if illegal activity - maybe racism or child pornography - is suspected, we will inform the police. "In a case such as the Richard Tomlinson site, if the police provided the correct warrants, then they would be given all the information they required. We cannot and will not just hand out information without breaching the Data Protection Act." "ISPs do not want to be the police of the Internet. But with the reporting procedure, and with the cooperation which is given to the police, crime on the Internet is limited." There are also moves being made to create tools which will allow users to filter out all the types of sites they do not wish to have access to, such as pornographic or racially abusive sites. Peter Shipley, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has a Computer Crime Group, said it was impossible to stop anyone creating and publishing a website, but that the police made every effort to track down people who published illegal information and images. "It is impossible to stop someone setting up a Website in the first instance, that is humanly and technologically impossible. "But we are having consultations with the ISPs and other people in the industry to come up with policy which will enable us to act against illegal information which is published on the Internet. "For example, the Government is about to publish the e-commerce bill, which will provide guidelines which should enable the authorities to clamp down on fraudulent activities on the Internet. "But we are faced with a technology that is growing and developing so rapidly, and we are having to develop ways of tackling the problems that are associated with it. "What you have to remember is that the Internet is not an intrinsically bad thing because some people chose to publish illegal information on it." The ISPA's Mr Lansman agrees. He said: "A lot of the information you can get on the Internet is to be found in all big libraries. If you wanted to make a bomb, there would be a library somewhere which would have the relevant information. "The ISPs cannot be held responsible for what is published. That is a nonsense. "The vast, vast majority of information published on the Internet is informative, or of leisure value, to the people who use it." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 15:23:01 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Control & Sensorship In a message dated 5/15/99 6:27:57 PM Central Daylight Time, ramadoss@eden.com writes: > In the past, people and governments and organizations -- business, > religious, spiritual and other -- and people with vested interests -- > routinely controlled and sensored and/or distorted the information and > facts that reached the public. Much too general and vague. In the past, states and governments did not have enough control over their own means of existence to have much control on the social flow of information. Consider an analogy. The NAZI SS about had a melt-down in attempting to implement to Final Solution. Eichmann saved the day for them by being a genius in keeping trains moving with troops to front and Jews to the rear coordinated by an extensive communication net. Imagine moving millions of persons while fighting a war without the modern technology that permits managing vast logistical operations coordinated by extensive communicative networks. Only the modern state has the technological and media resources to effectively censor and control information and people's attitudes. Only a modern state could have pulled off the Holocaust. There have been genocides before but not at such a scale, both in terms of numbers killed and geographical area affected, in such a short amount of time. No, censorship and power of the state has increased in our lives. By contrast, ancient societies, with their relatively primitive management hierarchies, were from the power perspective more like subsist farmers. That is, they had a marginal and subsistent control over their natural and human resources. For the most part, they did not care what the vast majority of the population, slaves, thought (if educated) or said. Given the very limited means to manipulate mass opinion, at most, ancient governments could only insist on external compliance to the social order dictated from above by fear of a big military. Rome, for example, did not have much control over what people thought believed, or wrote but it did maintain order by its legions. Remember, the empire was not strictly speaking a political order. In Roman law, it was a private, patrician, equestrial (military class - as opposed to the senatorial or landed class), and economic enterprise (sort of like a modern corporation). The Roman Empire was a military-backed mercantilism enforced by the legions. Such control from a modern perspective is extremely primitive. Today, we have the power to shape people's mind, opinions, attitudes, consumer and voting habits. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 15:26:28 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Control & Sensorship - 2 In a message dated 5/15/99 6:41:31 PM Central Daylight Time, ramadoss@eden.com writes: > The anonymity that Internet provides is another twist to the whole issue of > who is behind the information dissemination. In this, internet not new. Medium is new but people's bad habits are not. Anonymous information, problematic both in terms of its source and quality (accuracy) as the doxa (Plato), noise (Gnostics), or rumor, has been around as long as in-laws. Maybe longer! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:31:23 -0500 From: senzar@stic.net Subject: Is Theosophy becoming a Religion? A re-posting: The following copyrighted article is posted here with the permission of the author. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "... A CHURCH ON MY GRAVE." by S. Treloar (Copyright February 1996 S. L. Treloar) [The following is the address and conflation, that the writer would have delivered to the 120 anniversary of the T.S., at Toronto Lodge last November, had he been able to attend.] My concern, now that the Theosophical Society has passed the 120 year mark since its inception, is whether it will survive in any recognizable form, or even survive - period. Any organization that stiffens, crystallizes in its beliefs and attitudes, will then break apart and die, to paraphrase a Master. This can be seen amply by looking at the history of organizations and in particular, religious organizations. Why does a form, any form, die? So that the life within can escape, and if not perfected, go into another form (or create it) that allows for further growth and expression and expansion in new ways. The crystallized form has become too rigid to suit: the form is more plastic to the needs of the life, until the new form begins to stiffen. The more changeable the form, and therefore the more adaptable, far longer the life of the form, organism, organization. The personality expressions in an organization type of form are part of the form, and not its life. The life is the Soul aspect, which ever evolves. H. P. Blavatsky said, shortly before she died, speaking of what she could `foresee would be happening to her T.S.: "... they are going to build a church on my grave." And this said with tears in her eyes. Some have said that this was a prediction of the presence of the Liberal Catholic Church on the grounds of Adyar, or the prevalence of the Liberal Catholic Church amongst many T.S. members, and almost nowhere else. This is not so. H.P.B. was complaining that the TS she helped to found would become a religion, which is now to so many members, if not in actual legal fact, but treated as such. The TS was never intended to be a religion. HPB and the Masters quoted in *The Mahatma Letters* had many condemning words to say against religion and priestcraft, and with good reason, in particular the dogmatism that is part and parcel of any religion. One reads in the masthead page of *The Theosophical Digest*, "Theosophy is not a religion. The term has been used as an expression of the ageless wisdom of life that has existed since time immemorial and which may be found in the great spiritual traditions in the world." The TS was not founded to be a religion nor a set of fixed beliefs which is the prominent characteristic of a religion, yet this is the desired condition of the TS today among many members. The purpose and pursuit of an organization should be those as expressed in its Objects. The organization that concerns me here and now is the TS. It has a set of Objects. These have been changed a bit over the years from the original set, but at present are quite suitable, and all members should follow them, in a broad pursuit of these Objects, and I would suggest that too many do not, but act as if the Society's purpose was to follow a rather restricted path of beliefs and doctrines, which vary somewhat between TS groups, and the word "dogma" also comes in, but never officially acknowledged. The Objects of the Society are: a. To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour. b. The study of comparative religion, philosophy and science. c. The investigation of the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man. The above recited vary slightly as some groups have sought to alter for political correctness. The only one I would alter would be the first to indicate the oneness of all Life, and reword to include at least the Animal Kingdom as well as the Human. However, such a wording thus briefly hinted at, is not the purpose of this essay. It is to be noted that nowhere in these objects does it state that the purpose of the TS is the study and acceptance of the writings of HPB and *The Mahatma Letters* only, and the few other books that some claim as being the only ones fit and proper. In a religion, there are a number of common characteristics, especially in the exoteric form, and especially in the 6th Ray religion, (in this group are Christianity and Islam). There is a bad tendency for humans, to focus on the physical plane, the material, that they can see and fee and bite into. Thus in religions, there is a desired prophet or two, and the personality worship of the prophet or prophetess, and saints, if any, and usually there are, and above all, THE BOOK, something that sets down the what to believe, and what is permissible to believe - the Authority. Reading *The History of the Church* by the 3rd century bishop Eusebius recently, I was struck by the similarity of the formation of a religion of Theosophy by the Loud Minority of its members, with the similar characteristics in the early Christian Church. They had the Book of Authority, the Bible. They were very narrow minded against any unbelievers and of anyone else who might try to redefine or present another viewpoint, one instance being that of Manes or Manichaeus and his followers, the Manicheans. The Christians worshipped at cemeteries, doing so at the graves of saints and martyrs. They were and still are to this day somewhat obsessed with what is actually the worship of relics of saints. This done to the extent that the RC Church has always had a problem of weaning many of its members away from the worship of saints and relics to the worship of at least a little bit of God and Jesus and/or the Christ. This was noted in a book read a couple of years ago on the (current) process of how the Church makes saints. Noted too, in a book about the finding of the bones of St. Peter under the main altar of St. Peter's Cathedral in the Vatican, is the mention of the early Christians' habit of worshipping at the graves of saints, building a church thereon, if possible, therefore leading the archaeologists working in the crypt under the altar in St. Peter's to the conclusion that at least one set of the several skeletons found there was the remains of St. Peter. Eusebius mentions that in the two centuries of the history of the Church that he was covering, (he died 339 AD) the Roman Emperors variously allowed Christianity or proscribed it, depending on the frequent change of Emperor. When Christianity was forbidden, along would come an edict banning Christians meeting in cemeteries. Why? Because that is where one could find Christians worshipping at saints' and martyrs' graves, and other religions had no such morbid habit. There is a great tendency for theosophists to do an equivalent form of over attention to what can be seen, the physical, rather than to the Spirit. One finds personality worship, usually HPB but not exclusively so. The Canadian TS favours HPB and the Founders and this may also be found, to some extent, both here and abroad. Other groups include those whom I call the Latter Day Saints - Besant, Leadbeater and perhaps some presidents of the TS in Adyar, providing that they are dead now. Great attention is given to the history of the TS saints, founders and prophets. This is personality worship, a great human trait. It will be acknowledged if deemed glorious, but if it is deemed that someone is suggesting that this worshipping is pejorative, then it will be denied that it is ever done. The denial lie. Where in the writings of HPB which we are supposed to follow if we are "true theosophists", does she say that her personality shall be worshipped or otherwise glorified, and only her writings and those of certain approved (not by her, but by a later Loud Minority!) other writers are to be studied to the exclusion of all other works, excepting favorable commentaries on her writings? Our ultra conservatives deem that this is the only way to go, and all others must go this way too, the 6th Ray personality trait. The illusion is that they are purists: the reality is that they are narrow minded. The question of where did HPB say that her writings only and her personality to be given extreme attention, was put to some members earlier in 1995, (and then spread around many more, not at my expense, which was my idea and intent for an economical dissemination) and not yet has there been an answer given, because there is none. HPB was a very advanced Soul, and as such would have no patience with the waste of time of personality worship. She was also very broad minded and knew and could quote of the writings of very, very many, thus implying, if nothing else, the setting of an example for following theosophists. Being beyond the need for personal accolades and ego pumping. HPB would never have approved of being the object of personality worship, or a Blavatsky personality cult, which, unfortunately, exists, nor would she approve of the notion, which exists in some quarters, that her writings were to be for exclusive use and belief. That being so, why do those who would follow her as an ideal not follow her teachings in all things? The answer is obvious: human nature which tends to exalt that which can be seen and touched, the Prophet or Saint, and the chosen bible, the form and not the spirit. Thus are religions formed of the exoteric type, and theosophy as presently practiced by so many is exoteric, of the form and not the spirit. In view of HPB's attitudes on these subjects discussed in this paragraph, why do not her avid followers not pay attention to her intention? HPB wrote: "Orthodoxy in Theosophy is a thing neither possible nor desirable. It is diversity of opinion, within certain limits, that keeps the Theosophical Society a living and healthy body, its many ugly features notwithstanding. Were it not also for the existence of a large amount of uncertainty in the minds of the students of Theosophy, such healthy divergences would be impossible, and the Society would degenerate into a sect, in which a narrow and stereotyped creed would take the place of the living and breathing spirit of Truth and an ever growing knowledge." [It is ironic, in a matter that will be discussed here later, that this quote is from a letter that HPB wrote to the American Section of the TS.] It is the contention of this essay that "... a narrow and stereotyped creed" already exists, contrary to HPB's wishes, and created and maintained by those who hold her pronouncements as of supreme importance. But it was ever thus, only what suits one's predilections are used, the rest conveniently ignored. To be more specific: a characteristic of the 6th Ray person, (which 6th Ray represents Devotion to an Ideal) and of some others too, on other Rays, is that they chose only that which they want from their "Truth Sources" based on personal preferences, while claiming to follow their Ideal Source, and ignore what is said by the honoured Source where it does not fit their preferences. Authority through the filter of their personality: not everything goes through. Another 6th Ray characteristic is that all others must believe as the 6th Ray person does: no exceptions. If you do not so believe, you are going straight to Hell. In the TS, as with other organizations one finds those individuals who know it all, *self appointed* custodians of Truth, I call these the Loud Minority, and these get a following of sheep, who can't or won't study enough for themselves, so believe what the LM's say, and thus often from the Loud Minority we often actually get a majority. The L.M.'s decide what is Truth, and therefore what can be believed and taught, and thereby what books are correct. It was ever thus. Christianity has the Bible as the only book. The Moslems have their Koran. A Moslem general who once said that the Koran was the only book that needs to be read, then proceeded to burn down the library at Alexandria. (Not its first burning - one sees a bad habit forming) HPB took the trouble to quote the Buddha: "The only Truth in this world is that there is no Truth in it." The Buddha meant the physical world. While rummaging through *The Secret Doctrine* a few years ago for a suitable quotation to begin an Annual Members' Meeting, I read a few other things here and there that caught my eye. HPB said in Vol. 2, if my eidetic memory serves, that while there is no truth in the lower planes, (only maya and illusion) there was still a degree of relative truth, but no real truth as our Deity (or God) would know it. The truth of anything can only begin to be found when one can lift one's consciousness to the level of the Nirvanic Plane, (3rd from the top) as this is the lowest direct manifestation of the Solar Logos, or Deity of our system, or God, choose your favorite name. I recall once mentioning this in an article, to which someone took offense, taking this statement apart (showing that she had not read too much if anything of her *Secret Doctrine* bible) and asked "What is my authority for such a statement?" (for quotation). There is a problem with too many especially the "academics", they have no trust in their own powers of mind or reasoning, perhaps have none, and must base all that they allow themselves to believe on some other person, an "authority" rather than allowing an idea of their own leak in, and they will not allow another person to have an original idea or conclusion. It is to be noted well, that those who require authorities, be it HPB or whoever, chose from any authority only that which suits their own predilections and prejudices, and also only that which is the realm of their ken or state of education (or lack). Requiring "authorities" is a great fault among theosophists, - others too, - but I am concerned here chiefly with the health or lack, of the TS. "Diversity of opinion" and "... a large amount of uncertainty" are those things which can lead the brighter to inquire further and broadly, and thereby have a chance of eventually finding Truth. On this physical plane truth will always be relative, but more of even that is still desirable. This is impossible if a broad scope of study is not allowed, or frowned upon. Krishnamurti said "Truth is a Pathless Land." Meaning that each one of us must find the way to Truth by our own wanderings, there is no set roadway. It is the intention of the Deity of our system that each of us shall find our way back to Him, the Source, by our own differing way. This is His Plan, and by the diversity He becomes perfected in a most broad way. Were it otherwise, there would be no need for Him to have created so many Monads. Why have a thousand or million people (read Souls or Monads) treading identical paths, having identical experiences, when to accomplish this, only one Monad would be needed, not a million. A religion accepts only orthodox control of what can be taught, and believed. This has entered the TS as its members have shifted the TS into a religion. The Loud Minority have decided what is correct and what is not. Those who do not accept this are frowned upon, made uncomfortable so that they will leave, shown the door, or so discouraged as not to join in the first place, as happened with two of my relatives - who still studied of things occult. The decision as to what is acceptable is arbitrary, a position seized upon by the pushy, the L.M.'s, by some who have studied a fair amount and in so doing assume they know more, and know best, impressing a few sheep in the process. If HPB is the ideal, her intentions if followed by these purists are purely co- incidental. I know of an incident in the past year where a member was literally escorted to the door. I learned from another that this ousted person was much more broad minded that was generally favoured in that lodge. In a religion, of the 6th Ray at any rate, and in semi religions (those in the making) much energy is spent in seeing that all are believers of the official line, Like political dictatorships, which sooner or later (usually sooner) spend a neurotic amount of energy on political pureness of the masses and seeking out the dissenters and unbelievers, religions too get to a stage where too much energy is spent in seeing that the members are not heretics of the official line. This to the extent of mass murder and torture as in the Inquisition. This deviated 180 degrees from what the Founder of Christianity taught, but this never bothered the participants, they choose only from their sources and authorities that which suits their predilections. The R.C. Church is and has been so obviously *not* based on the Bible, as one might expect it to be, that even the clergy enlightened enough to see this and admit it, excuse the Church by saying that the Church is based on tradition. The TS has this quality too of not being properly based on the Founders' intentions, and has been for some time. No Inquisitions (yet) for which thanks be given,just out-easing. The TS'ers who claim HPB is the one and only actually do not follow her line, as I have complained about herein. The only reason we do not hear her turning over in her grave is because she was cremated and her ashes scattered. Control of beliefs in religion or theosophy, orthodoxy of beliefs brought into official control, are all contrary to HPB's statement the "orthodoxy in theosophy is impossible and undesirable.", thus it is obvious that the interpretation of what is meant by "theosophy" is *not* by HPB's instructions or teachings but by the arbitrary whims and dictates of others, who set themselves up as the "true" interpreters. Are these others to be regarded as more qualified than HPB? There are recent by-law changes in another country that will enable the dictating of what can be taught, which implies that someone must set themselves up as interpreters of the "truth". I challenge the HPB-only's to come up with glorious excuses and explanations as to why they deviate so willingly from the example and teachings of HPB whom they adore and falsely claim to follow, taking only what suits their predilections from her writings. HPB was a grand lady with great revelations for our development. What a pit so few want to follow her broad- minded example. One finds in her greatest advocates her greatest distorters. While I mostly deal with the matters as found prominent in the Canadian end of the TS, as seeing what has been closest to me for over 50 years better than what is distant. I have to report on a matter that has just recently come up in a country very close geographically to Canada. In that country they recently adopted some by-law changes. This happens all the time, as you might say, so what. Among several changes are two that are quite nasty and dangerous, and the sign that religionism has taken over. One by-law says that the headquarters can now dictate to lodges, (and members by implication one may assume) what can be taught. This implies also dictating what can be believed, in order that the "taught" person can safely assume it to be a "theosophical" belief. This has the approval of Adyar, and is touted to be right and proper and in consonance with the Rules of the International (Adyar) TS. If it is now, what was it before so that a change was deemed necessary, or was it not strict enough in the previous wording? It has been said for a long time now, probably predating my existence on the physical plane, that the Adyar Rules in parts are very undemocratic, placing dictatorial powers in the hands of whoever may be president. This and the obedience requirement for the ES members to the Outer Head - and the ES is dominant in the Adyarian TS world-wide - places too much power in one person. Thus the deciding of what is "kosher" to be taught has the potential for abuse, and I would suggest, has been abused already, which I will later deal with. The other objectionable part to these by-law changes is that they state that all assets of the lodges belong to Headquarters. This can mean the national headquarters and by implication, and in past performances, Adyar. This is to apply even if the regional lodge is a corporation. The by-law has passed. It has been suggested by critics of the by-law change in that country that the vote was light, and perhaps not all who participated in the vote fully understood the implications. Be that as it may, several lodges are very much opposed to these two changes, the other changes in the by-law amendment are rather innocuous. If this is what the members of that Section want, I agree that each has the right to go to Hell in their own way, and if their way is wrong, Karma will adjust, rewarding or biting. I do not agree with the two parts that some find objectionable, but cannot directly interfere at this distance, and won't, other than to express an opinion. I strongly object to the idea of asset seizure. This is robbery, theft, unless done when a lodge collapses and there are no more members, then reversion of the assets to the headquarters is justified. If the lodge is still alive, and its direction does not suit headquarters, or the lodge wants to separate, they should be able to and take their assets with them on separation, which assets, in my opinion belong to them. The dictating of what can be taught and claiming to own all assets of branches is a thing well noted in religions, so this is another step in TS religionism, (a favorite word of the late Alvin B Kuhn). HPB, Judge and Besant all said that there was autonomy of lodges and Sections, and that there was no "parent" society. The current management in Adyar may say that there is autonomy, but their actions in the past few years show that they believe otherwise. I am a strong believer that there is and should be autonomy of lodges and Sections. When a lodge wants to leave, they should go intact. I know of court decisions where the headquarters can grab the assets, and of court decisions where the courts decided otherwise. When lodges left in the Canadian TS, I did not even bother to inform the Board of Directors of this, (various court decisions) as a decision either way would be up to the judge that one got and the astuteness of the lawyers, and since the outcome would almost as a flip of the coin, only the lawyers with their large fees could win. Ask Adyar how much they spent to lose the Denmark affair. Besides, I believe in the autonomy of lodges etc. Either there is autonomy or there is not. There is no grey area. Obviously Adyar and its obedient affiliates believe that there is not autonomy. This and the control of what can be taught, which can be called the episcopalian system, is what this nearby country's TS has now. That its president, whose writings I have publicly expressed as a great breath of fresh air, has adopted - gone along with - this narrow concept, can best be explained by the fact that he once was in training to be a Roman Catholic priest. Thus such control would not be an unfamiliar thing to him. To objections to the changes in the bylaws, officialdom has claimed that such strictures and control of teachings and assets were already in place, and these changes but emphasized them. All the defenses for the changes I can argue against, but that is not my purpose here, only to point out that it is a crystallizing event and a further consolidation of theosophy as a religion. One of the leaders of a lodge objecting to these changes in by-laws has said that part of the reason is fear of some lodges teaching or allowing to be taught, classes on Bailey books. His lodge is very broad minded and allows anything along occult lines to be taught. He pointed out that in the past few years that the interference by Adyar into the affairs of lodges and sections, in Jugoslavia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and Canada's excommunication, were based on the fact that Alice Bailey's books were being used in some classes. In this he was almost completely correct. Canada and possibly Ireland's incidents were not for this reason. He said that obviously Adyar and certain others who toed the party line were in fear of Bailey, and felt threatened. I agree completely with this as a valid psychological assessment. (To be concluded in July-August 1996 issue). ________________________________________ The Canadian Theosophist, Vol. 77, No. 2., May-June 1996, pp. 26-34 The second and concluding part follows. This will appear in the Canadian Theosophist, July - August 1996 issue. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "... A Church On My Grave." PART TWO By S. Treloar (Copyright February 1996 by Stanford L Treloar) Can a Theosophist go to church? One hears this asked on occasion. If Theosophy is a religion, as the question implies, the answer has to be no. The true occultist may see sufficient problems of revealed truth lacking in the exoteric religion of a church and not want to go. Others my like the atmosphere, and also see the truths veiled behind the exoteric parts of the religious service, and be able to get an uplift from the church service and its rituals. This need for rituals and a lighter, less-to-non-intellectual approach has led to the rituals brought in by the post Blavatsky E.S. The E.S. variously stands for Esoteric Section, Esoteric School, and for me, Elitist Section. I have never disguised my contempt for this group in general for abuses of power, snobbishness and a few other things better said in private. The charge that is elitist is born out by the fact that only E.S. members get into the hierarchy of leadership of the Adyarian T.S. It is not exactly democratic, as a member must take an oath of obedience to the Outer Head, who at the moment is (and historically most often is) the international president. The exception to the above statements has been the leadership of the Canadian division of the T.S. who have been against the E.S. in general, not withstanding plenty of E.S. members in the ranks. The Canadian division, which being now independent, I will not refer to as the Canadian Section now, is the group I mostly refer to in this essay, as being the one most closely observed, starting when I was about 18. This Canadian division has been historically probably most conservative, fundamentalist T.S. group in the world. The simple version of Theosophy as put forth by Besant and Leadbeater and some others later, has been condemned by many Canadian T.S.'ers as being false and "Neo Theosophy". Some of the accusations are accurate and justified, some are not. In general I find that this form of theosophy, which I call "Besantine" theosophy is for most part a simplified form of what HPB brought forth, and some parts may contain organic fertilizer from the male cow. The Canadian Group, with its Loud Minority deciding what must be rejected, has been breaking apart from its crystallization before I was born. The first split was in 1924 when the staunch E.S.'ers formed a separate section, recognized by Adyar, and which still exists today as the Canadian Federation of Theosophists, and is the official Canadian T.S. as recognized today by the Adyar Vatican. Not all E.S. members are found in the Canadian Federation, some were and are always in the Canadian Section, now independent. I always likened them to communists holed up out of sight, but potently waiting for the right moment to lead, in a trade union. The E.S. members are the most likely to be in favor of ceremonies, a religious aspect of theosophy, (not favored by HPB) and such ceremonies were looked down upon by the late J. Krishnamurti, who when asked shortly before his death, if he would ever join the T.S., replied (in part) ".... only if the T.S. gets rid of its ceremonies..." Some theosophists believe that the whole truth of existence was given out by HPB, and that there has been none given out since her death, and that there can be no further revelation ever, obviously, since all has been revealed. On this the late Dr. Gina Cerminara, a theosophist and psychologist, (or perhaps psychiatrist) remarked "Some theosophists .... become as dogmatic and absolute in their theosophical opinions as the most orthodox christian fundamentalists. HPB fully recognized the dangers of such an attitude, foresaw that this might happen and warned against it in many passages of her work. "The *Secret Doctrine* is not meant to give any such final verdict on existence, but to lead toward the truth" - HPB in "How to Study Theosophy." Our theosophical fundamentalists cannot separate their religion making tendencies and desires from HPB's intent, and so the narrow views prevail, harden, and the T.S. breaks apart, predicted by a Master or several, and expected by this writer many long years ago. And it is breaking apart. Those who had to keep attached to Adyar, to save their souls, and perhaps keep their chances of getting into or staying in the "Golden Book", had to leave us here when the Canadian Section was excommunicated. Since then other groups known for ultra conservatism in leadership if not the entire membership, have broken associations and become independent, again predicted. One hears the statement made at times, usually when someone dares to mention the name of some TS writer not on the accepted List (accepted by who? an arbitrary acceptance foisted by someone in the Loud Minority), "I thought that this was supposed to be a Blavatsky lodge (or Section, or whatever)? Again, accepted and by whose authority was it declared to be an HPB only? Examination will show that it is not in the by-laws, not in the Objects, and not in the Minutes of any Board meeting of any lodge or group. So the whole situation is the arbitrary set-up of the narrow fundamentalist types, foisted on the others, accepted by those who like to follow leaders, and those who object, either keep quiet or leave, Is this any different from the behaviour in a religious organization? This behaviour is exactly as can be expected from the 6th Ray personality, devotion to an ideal, as expressed through an imperfect 6th Ray type. The purpose of the Solar Logos, or Deity or God, is to evolve. As the entire solar system is His body of expression, all its parts must follow and express His purpose. Evolving means change. "The only thing in this world that never changes is the fact that everything changes." Something new is change. If it is new, it is different, at least to some degree. If it is not different, it is not new. If something evolves, it must therefore appear changed, different, and so on. The conservatives cannot abide by change. An occult law states "that all change is painful": a psychological fact too. If an new revelation or interpretation does not appear to have come from HPB's writings, our conservative/fundamentalist TS'ers reject it as "neo", "false", "pseudo" and so on. Unfortunately, they regard their judgments in that respect as coming directly from God, as they have that amazing ability to make such judgments without looking into the new too far, if at all. The new is sometimes rejected, an all too human and universal trait, because it did not come from the mind of the objector, the motivation: jealousy. New and different in theosophical thought must be wrong, even if it may be but a revelation of one of the many locks and keys that are blinds in the *Secret Doctrine*. Rejection of new is in the religious attitude, as anyone can see who looks over the standard behaviour of the exoteric crystallization and the break-up and ultimate death of the organization. In the matter of crystallization, there is an interesting passage: "... the Great White Lodge and the Black Lodge - the one dedicated to the beneficent task of purifying and aiding all lives in the three worlds and the other to the retardation of the evolutionary forces and to the continuous crystallizing of the material forms ..." The works and revelations of Alice Bailey bring forth the most violent reactions from the ultra-conservatives. First, there was extreme resentment by at least two women, Besant and Tingley, that Bailey was chosen and not them to write for a Master. Then her writings are new and therefore different, resented by the unchangeable, and above all, the Bailey writings, like the *Secret Doctrine* of HPB, are extremely difficult, with the real meanings well hidden. These revelations have considerable overtones in and of psychology, therefore the message therein was better brought forth in this century when the science of psychology is much better developed than at the time of HPB. I have yet to get an intelligent reason why Bailey should be so condemned by those who do, from those who do. That they do not and cannot understand her writings and revelations is patent. In the ultra conservatives there is an observable fear and feeling of being threatened, supplying energy to the condemnations. There will be a few more remarks on this later. There is difference between theosophy based on: (a) HPB's writings only, and (b) one based on HPB's methods of broad pursuit of truth, and knowledge, never static. "a" is static and has to be and is the preferred mode of the 6th Ray types, and is not evolution and cannot be: the second "b" mode can evolve. Exclusiveness to the works and personality of HPB (see the enormous amount written of her history which energy could better be spent on interpretation) are the typical and psychological characteristics of a religion held, and held as being dutiful and virtuous to her memory and the only way to go. Certainly she deserves much, but Karma will reward her directly -- we need our energy spent on advancing ourselves and our fellows, not in hero(ine) worship. The problem is that HPB never instructed this behaviour from her ardent followers -- may have more than hinted that it was a human trait that should be grown out of -- she never suggested that she should be so set up as an object of such adoration so typical of religious followers. To her ardent followers, I again ask, why not follow her *example*? That would involve being broad minded, which most devotees to the Ideal, (6th Ray types) are not. The Deva evolution is described as vertical: their energies travel up and down in a direct line from and to Deity. The human kingdom is said to be at right angles to the Deva Kingdom, and go horizontally, and thus we have the warp and woof of the fabric of the Deity in manifestation. The human goes along a street, a cul-de-sac no matter how long, and he/she polishes it by the experience encountered thereon and *contributes to it* by his interests on that horizontal line as long as he is content to stay there. It may be a lifetime. Mankind polishes a *cul-de-sac*. If he is progressive, he will, before death, move upward to another level of *cul-de-sacs*, lingering for a while, and may even go several steps upward before the lifetime is finished. Hopefully, in the next incarnation, the less progressive will incarnate at the next level up, and commence to polish that *cul-de-sac*. In the TS, Adyarian or separated varieties, one sees a lot of one level *cul-de-sac* polishers. Accepting a change can mean going to another level, -- upwards. Truth is a many faceted gem, and too many only see the one facet or two that reflects the light from where they are standing, rather than seeing the whole gem. I used to think that this was my original thought, until I saw that HPB had also said it. Since there are very many ways to look at something, (I speak of ideas here) one wonders why the followers of HPB only, pay no attention to her good advice and revelations, such as the one just quoted here, instead of selectively taking something here and there, as might suit their predilections. As I said before, "she was a grand lady, with so many revelations for our development ... her greatest advocates are her greatest distorters." I can visualize her, if she were here to deal with these distorters, calling them the "Flapdoodlers" and their religion the Flapdoodle Sect. ("Flapdoodle" was one of her favourite words, when not using direct and deserved profanity, and the word is in the dictionary). If it looks and acts like a religion, it probably is, even if its participants deny it. As with the ultra conservatism of most of the Canadian TS, when something is (self) regarded as correct, it is proudly boasted of, but if someone suggests it could be pejorative, the participants deny doing any such thing. The denial lie, predictable as it is ubiquitous. When in my teens, I started a lifetime interest in psychology. As I could not then psychoanalyze people on a couch, I would then use a substitute method, at first for the purposes of proving if psychology was true. If I noted something interesting, I would proceed to ask certain questions, or steer the conversation a certain way to see if what psychology would predict for this situation would hold true. It always did. Then when I saw the interesting field of esoteric psychology, I jumped into that too. I used the same technique to see if it was valid. It has been thus far. The religionists and ultra orthodox of the TS members have been a great help in proving parts of what has been given out about the Rays, the 6th Ray in particular. My contention is that Mme Blavatsky was quite broad minded and would never condone the narrow minded line that her TS has become. I could say, has degenerated to. This happened to Christianity, for it is not based on the teachings of the Christ as found in that religion's favourite book, the Bible, neither Roman Catholic or Protestant versions of christianity, and certainly not on that earlier form of Christianity, Gnosticism. I think HPB hoped that it would not go that way, but foresaw it, hence her wail, as quoted at the beginning of this essay. These words of mine will have no effect on the religionists in the TS if they are over 30 or perhaps 40. Man has a concrete mind, and the concrete sets at about age 20. Thereafter it takes hammer and chisel to change any set ideas. Concrete is a good example of crystallization, for in the version of concrete that is used in building, bridges and roads, etc., when concrete sets, it forms crystals as it turns to man-made stone. The changing of an organization by crystallization is not evolution. Perhaps some of our younger members will be able to see the need for a broad attitude, as stated by the HPB quote used earlier in this article. A past General Secretary of Canada, and a former editor of this magazine stated in an essay "Do not take any graven images of the mind", as an interpretation of the Biblical stricture against graven images in the Ten Commandments. The problem with human nature, speaking of the Ten Commandments, (written in stone) is that humans, if they do a thing twice, think that they have to do it unchangingly that way ever after, hence the saying, "Written in Stone". Some philosophers are more generous than I and say; "If a human does a thing three times, etc..." Rigidness is symptomatic of a religion. In some places we see the term "source theosophy" used to show or define the correct and desirable form. What can this mean? One might think that it could be the first-use type of theosophy, as found, used and defined by Ammonius Saccas at the beginning of the Christian era, or mayhap its earlier use, as the word has been traced to about 200 BC and is claimed to have been used by St. Paul. This is not what the users of "source theosophy" mean. They mean Blavatskyian theosophy, however that might be described or defined. I doubt that HPB would like the use of the term in that way. In defining "source theosophy" one can see a problem in determining just who is entitled to make the definition. There are those who will (and do) define it, an arbitrary assumption of the right to define it. Does not this also happen, and be a prominent trait, in a religion? The Pope defines, and is infallible, yet other Christian groups offer other definitions for the same thing, and so the fights go on forever. The TS now has all the cute faults of a religion, and of which (religion) HPB had many things to find fault with. The TS has been breaking apart, and this started with Judge, but I do not blame him for it, rather Besant, and mention it only to set a date. The Canadian group has been breaking apart since 1924, and with its boasted ultra conservatism, (but worded otherwise) it should be seen as inevitable. The blame will be placed elsewhere, including on me; the blame will be seen everywhere except where it is, which is in the ultra conservatism, and misplaced interpretation on certain chosen writers only, whether HPB or the Besantine outlook. Some groups in the TS place little emphasis on HPB, Besantine theosophy being preferred, as being easier. Countess Wachtmeister said that HPB while writing the *Secret Doctrine* said to her that someone in the 20th century would write the psychological key to the *Secret Doctrine*. I suggest that this has been done, in Cosmic Fire by Alice Bailey. That is an opinion. But if it did not happen, was HPB or Countess Wachtmeister a liar? Not likely in either case. The narrow will never agree with me, as it goes counter to the religion aspect of theosophy today, suggesting a threat to consolidated beliefs in the oneness and onlyness (a word?) of the chosen brand of theosophic religion, Blavatskyism, Besantine, or even Judgeian. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word "cult" as: a system of religious worship, devotion or homage to person or thing. What was once intended for concern with the occult is now tending to a cult. In fear of change, someone remarked at a TS Annual Meeting, and was overheard, "... that the TS is being taken over by Roozycrewshuns! (sic) (Rosicrucians). There are a few members who are also Rosicrucians. I can see nothing wrong with this. On the contrary, a good sign. Are not Rosicrucians (an appellation but a few hundred years old) from a very ancient line of esotericists from which modern day Theosophy derives? Why did these alarmed members not worry when the TS was run by a Zen Buddhist? Or is it because HPB and Olcott became Buddhists, not necessarily Zen? I can visualize some Rosicrucians expressing fear "... that some of our members are being perverted over to Theosophy, and thus the Theosophists are going to take us over!" Where is the broad mindedness of HPB in Theosophists today? No wonder "... the Masters left the TS", (see D. Buxey, C.T. Mar. - Apr. 1996). Alice Bailey asked in an early 1920's lecture: "Why should we (the TS) go back to Blavatsky when she is so far ahead of us?" "Let us go *forward* to Blavatsky: our Blavatskyites ("source theosophists") have gone back(wards) to her. Only by a broad study of all and any sources can we have any hope of finding the meanings hidden in the *Secret Doctrine*, so far as HPB gave out part of the secret doctrine, the rest we will have to find out for ourselves, as the great Plan intends we shall. -----------------------***--------------------- To be published in The Canadian Theosophist, July-Aug 1996. Mailing address of Canadian Theosophist: R.R. No. 3, Burk's Falls Ontario P0A 1C0 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 01:52:57 -0700 From: Mark Kusek Subject: Some Questions Jerry, I put these questions out to you and the list at large, although I am particularly interested in your responses. Your correspondance has been very helpful to me in the past. I find your understandng beneficial. To the list at large I offer my sincerity in asking, and welcome all of your thoughts. I have been observing my own inner processes for some time and want to put these questions out to a sounding board. I am interested in the understanding you possess of traditional Buddhist perspectives and see you as an informed source. (To any dissenters, I welcome your comments as well). To those of you who feel inclined to speak on behalf of an understanding of traditional Theosophy (as I'm sure there are many), I only ask that for my own clarity, you specify your position as either Theosophic or Traditionally Buddhist. Thanks for your kind indulgence. Aum Namo Prajnaparamita Aum. I have heard you talk about the "endless rounds of rebirth in Samsaric existence" and the possibility of "liberation in one lifetime." I have followed the thread that these ideas generated on the list. My first question is: Do any schools of traditional Buddhism adhere to the notion that evolution will, of it's own momentum (i.e., as a supra-personal cosmic impulse) ,bring all beings to eventual liberation? What I am after here is your opinion of the traditional Buddhist view as to what happens to a person who merely follows their natural instincts and impulses life after life, rebirth after rebirth. Will following these natural impluses, in the long eons of manvantaric time, (and hopefully learning the karmic lessons of cause and effect along the way) eventuate in liberation or merely continue to bind them to the wheel of rebirth endlessly? Is there an eventual naturally prompted escape, enlightenment, realization? Is their an evolutionary plan active in Nature itself regardless of any cooperative effort of our personal will? Will Nature itself bring the Buddha seed within us to fruition as it does any other flower? I cite Taoism and it's attitude of "harmony with Nature" and the notion of becoming "one with the universe" (one with the Tao) as a positive example. Basically, my question is, it is necessary to struggle against one's "nature" to gain liberation? Or is there a wise and enlightened attitude of understanding and cooperation with nature that is possible? Must we reject and struggle against our nature or seek to understand and accept it to gain liberation? Isn't this what mindfulness (and Jungian Individuation) is all about? What are the traditional Buddhist views? Are there differences between Buddhist schools on this point? Is struggle against nature a necessary requisite to enlightenment or is acceptance and understanding a healthy and valid approach? My second question is: In the traditions of Buddhism, what is the teaching given regarding the original cause of ignorance? Is an original cause meant to be understood as both personal and universal or just personal? If both, is the cosmic part of it meant to be understood as only manvantaric and thus relative and limited in scope, or do Buddhists posit an absolute ignorance? If manvantaric, is the paradox of manifestation then (whether cosmic or personal) one of relativity in terms of ignorance and its opposite: enlightenment? I understand the Buddhist concept of tanha or "thirst for manifested life" to be said to be dependant upon and conditioned by a sentient being's past karma. I've always heard it spoken of in terms of the personal dimension. Does this also hold true for a sentient being occupying transpersonal dimensions? Is there therefore an absolute original first cause of all manifestation, or is the concept of "first cause" always meant to be understood as manvantaric and thus relative and periodic? Is every universal manifestation the result of some cosmic individual's karma, subject to and conditioned by their continually relative state of enlightenment/ignorance? Would the same be true of all the traditional Buddhist "Poisons"; Ignorance, Lust and Hate? Are these merely the results of a karmically regulated and relatively unenlightened state of manifesting sub-cosmic sentient beings or the very conditions that manifestation in any dimensions of the limitations of Time/Space/Form require? I know that I'm mixing up my cosmic and intra-cosmic analogies in this question. I hope I haven't been too confusing. Third question: Why would a manifested cosmic "being," in a state of relatively "perfect enlightenment at it's own level," ( compared to any mayavic sub-individualities that arise or "exist" within it's dream of manifestation) desire to manifest into that self-created dream, knowing that it would necessitate a position of ignorance toward it's own true nature while in the limitations of the positions it would inhabit during participation? Is this a requirement of Manifestation or a choice, like the self imposed rules of a game? Law or choice? Mandate or creative caprice? Are there other "games" of manifestation it could play or is it always this one? I've heard you say that you believe the impulse for manifestation is the desire for "self expression," but by that do you mean it to be a conscious choice of that supra being or an unconscious natural impulse that it cannot choose to avoid (i.e., is even the cosmic hierarch of a maha-manvantara conditioned by a superior law of karma, subject to it's own relative ignorance/enlightenment, swabhava and tanha regardless of the manifested dimensions that it would occupy?) Is it already under the illusion of Maya even at cosmic levels? Is there such a thing therefore as absolute enlightened manifestation or is it always relative to that manifested being's relative state of enlightenment/ignorance and only seems absolute to sub-individualities within that being's sphere of manifestation? What do you believe the goal of that self expression would be? Fourth question: Why/how does the personal experience of enlightenment equate with the arising of compassion? If the manifested field of opposites must of necessity posit compassion against it's opposite, why does that experience bring about the arising of a motivation toward compassionate action and not it's opposite or does it? Is the transformation into compassionate bodhicitta a direct de facto result of the experience of enlightenment or a personal/individual (re: temperamental) choice or inclination? If a personal/individual choice (one way or the other), how can that be taken seriously in view of the realization of anatman? I cite a story I once heard about some Zen practitioners. The master of a certain temple was teaching a young monk about the Dharma. A wandering mendicant came into the temple and irreverently appoached the sanctuary where they stood. The hermit looked at them and then wheeled with contempt and turned to face the elaborately carved statues of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas. He shreiked out loud and violently spat upon the statues. Then he turned around abruptly and left. The young acolyte anxiously questioned his Master, "Sir, why has that man acted so?" The Master replied, "Before enlightenment, some spit and some bow. After enlightenment, some spit and some bow." Why, upon enlightenment, did the Buddha get up and teach? Next question: If the result of enlightenment is said to be the understanding of the Middle Way, then does that mean non-attachment to pleasue as well as pain, beauty as well as ugliness, enjoyment as well as suffering, love as well as hate, health as well as disease and life as well as death? Should we not affirm and say "Yes" to Life? How does one continue to have a personal and/or emotional life after that experience? Last question: I've heard the Dalai Lama say that what we normally consider to be love for a spouse is not true love but attachment. I can kind of understand that. Jesus even said something to the effect that "if you are not prepared to give up your wife, husband, family, etc. for me, then you are not ready to follow me," (or something like that, ... I'm paraphrasing). It makes you wonder then just what is meant by true love and why the image of love is so misrepresented in our culture? How should one regard personal and familial relationships? What attitude toward them is correct? How do we participate in the family, in the marriage, in the personal life, etc.? What is the traditional Buddhist teaching for married householders who choose to remain lay people, raise a family and live in the world instead of retreating to monastic life? Aum Namo Prajnaparamita Aum. Thanks for your patience, Regards, -- Mark Without Walls:An Internet Art Space email: mark@withoutwalls.com www.withoutwalls.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:01:35 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: ULTese Hi all, There has been a discussion on ULTese on this list. Someone asked me what I found interesting about it. He wondered how the study of ULTese would help the spiritual growth of me, or the other listmembers or of the ULT itself. About the second two, I don't know much, but I do know this: it helps me in my study of human nature. I have always been an interested and fascinated people-watcher. I have never quite gotten around to understanding this strange species, but I do try. Studying theosophy in general adds a lot to the puzzle, and seems to help in solving it. But in that study (of people) theosophy also becomes a factor. Theosophy: its ideals of altruism, freedom of thought and also its *doctrines* have had a profound impact on the world in the past century. More directly theosophy (just for the occasion defined as above) has been an influance on people who have tried to build organisations according to its principles. Some of those organisations are based on the idea of freedom first. Others are based on the value of the *doctrines* first. Others are mix of these two. The ULT is quite an original player in this field. They take the idea of anonimity to the extreme. They take the idea of teachings before the person to the extreme. Also of all the organisations with studygroups in physical space (I mean all non-internet-organisations), it is the one who has tried to keep the weight of the organisation itself as small as possible. I view it as an interesting experiment. And, as I am profoundly convinced of the value of diversity, I also value its originality. So, all in all, I am very interested in all that can be found on how theosophy is tried to be put into practice. If something like ULTese comes from people genuinely trying to do what they thought H.P.Blavatsky would have wanted them to do, then I am genuinely interested in how it works. Again: studying human nature and the interaction of human nature with theosophy is interesting to me, so in the same wise, ULTese is for me interesting. And I would like to close with something H.P.Blavatsky said, though I do not have the exact quotation: she said she critisized people in the hope of being critisized herself, because that is one of the easiest ways of discovering your weaknesses. So if the ULT is flexible enough to know how to reflect on its own functioning, it will probably learn something from our discussion of ULTese. Of course it is very likely that they do not learn what the writer of the ULTese-dictionary wants them to learn, but something completely different. But that is their business, not mine, nor is it the business of the writer of the ULTese-dictionary to be, since he is not a member of their organisation it seems and in that sense I can sympathise with the person who feels we should just leave them to do what they do. Katinka Hesselink (formarly known as Katinka; I do not really believe in anonimity to the extreme... ;-) ) ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:01:20 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Re: Some Questions [Mark Kusek] >>I have heard you talk about the "endless rounds of rebirth in Samsaric existence" and the possibility of "liberation in one lifetime." I have followed the thread that these ideas generated on the list.<< Let me summarize what I have said: Most everyone who believes in reincarnation and karma accepts the idea of liberation from samsara (not necessarily an escape to nirvana) eventually. When we ask ourselves the purpose of such reincarnation, it is almost a universal belief that it implies some kind of evolutionary development culminating in liberation/enlightenment. The idea of "liberation in one lifetime" is a fallout of the possibility that this very life could be the one in which that evolutionary culmination germinates and bears fruit. The fatalistic idea that it has to occur in a future life, so prevalent in modern Theosophy, is self-defeating and will lead to the same apathy and stagnation found throughout India for centuries. The West is supposed to be the home of the next subRace, with Theosophy (cap T intended) its nurturing inspiration, but this won't happen under the current atmosphere. I did not expect this warning to sit well with Theosophical purists or those whose minds are already set, but was not prepared for the actual bitter responses I received, so reminiscent of my essay on sex some years ago. I have to suppose that it will take time before these new ideas can ever hope to be accepted. >>My first question is: Do any schools of traditional Buddhism adhere to the notion that evolution will, of it's own momentum (i.e., as a supra-personal cosmic impulse) ,bring all beings to eventual liberation?>> Yes and no. Hinduism accepts the Breath of Brahman idea of the Arcs of Ascent and Descent that HPB uses in her Globes & Planes Model. However, Buddhism does not accept any kind of divine creation or Creator of any type. According to the Mahayana, our own karma creates this world and everything in it, and we will incarnate over and over forever until we consume or transcend our personal karma. Buddhists do not believe in divine grace as understood in Christianity. For some schools, liberation from reincarnation is the karmic result of transcending karma. For other schools, like the Great Perfection, there is a divine Basis, the Source of both samsara and nirvana, which transcends them both (rather like HPB's Beness) and liberation is recognizing this Basis- an event that is not karmic at all because such recognition is neither a cause nor an effect. I would say that Zen's Original Face is a similar teaching. But all schools of Buddhism recognize that evolution is maya. Most schools teach that samsara is maya. The Great Perfection (Dzogchen) would include nirvana as being maya as well. >>What I am after here is your opinion of the traditional Buddhist view as to what happens to a person who merely follows their natural instincts and impulses life after life, rebirth after rebirth. >> Golden chains are as binding as iron. Whether karma rewards or punishes makes no real difference because both are binding and restricting. I have not found the idea of the Arc of Descent followed by the Arc of Ascent anywhere in Buddhism, although it could be that I simply have missed it. The Hindu teaching of Kundalini as the feminine evolutionary force within every human being is not found in Buddhism to my knowledge. Hinduism emphasizes evolution. Buddhism emphasizes liberation or enlightenment. Hinduism places Kundalini in the Root Center and strives to awaken her. Buddhist Yoga seldom ever uses the Root Center at all and when they do they generally place a mandala there rather than Kundalini. >>Will following these natural impluses, in the long eons of manvantaric time, (and hopefully learning the karmic lessons of cause and effect along the way) eventuate in liberation or merely continue to bind them to the wheel of rebirth endlessly? >> Eventually all sleeping people wake up. Liberation will come to everyone in good time as they progress through reincarnation and karma, but without the bodhisattva or suitable inspired message, it would theoretically take counteless kalpas. But such a condition is impossible, because Buddhists insist that buddhas and bodhisattvas are everywhere, in all universes, and we only have to recognize them and listen to them, and then emulate them. Your question requires at least some attention to the idea of time itself. Time is very relative, and there is no such thing as forever (time ticking on without end). A kalpa is the blink of an eye to the divine monad. Two weeks is an entire lifetime to some insects. <> The Great Perfection teaches that we already are one with the universe. I developed the I-Not-I Monad Model in my Enochian Physics some years ago to show that we each carry around our own world. It is not so much a question of becoming as it is of recognizing what already exists. >> Basically, my question is, it is necessary to struggle against one's "nature" to gain liberation?>> Yes. Such a struggle is essential at first. But with Adepthood there is acceptance and no more need for struggle as such. >> Or is there a wise and enlightened attitude of understanding and cooperation with nature that is possible? Must we reject and struggle against our nature or seek to understand and accept it to gain liberation? Isn't this what mindfulness (and Jungian individuation) is all about? >> Jung's individuation, when carried to its ultimate fruition, results in the transcendence of the personal ego. Liberation results in the transcendence of personal karma and the realization that there is no ego as a thing-in-itself to begin with. If we compare life to a dream, then liberation would be equivalent to waking up. Mindfulness, in the Buddhist sense, would be equivalent to lucid dreaming. The problem is that we have multiple natures, and as we go through our incarnations, we take on multiple identities. Our sense of identity is a frail and temporary thing at best. So, who is incarnating? The divine monad is already divine and perfect and doesn't need to evolve. >>Are there differences between Buddhist schools on this point? Is struggle against nature a necessary requisite to enlightenment or is acceptance and understanding a healthy and valid approach?<< Yes, there are many differences between schools. There is a need for both struggle and acceptance. However, the acceptance must come out of a long serious struggle for it to be meaningful. Acceptance of our human condition is OK, but remember-we are more than human and we have to struggle to fully realize this. >>My second question is: In the traditions of Buddhism, what is the teaching given regarding the original cause of ignorance?>> It varies with schools. Some would say that ignorance is like dust settling on the surface of a mirror. It is the obstruction or distortion of one's view. >>Is an original cause meant to be understood as both personal and universal or just personal?>> Universal. There is no "person" for it to attach to. >> If both, is the cosmic part of it meant to be understood as only manvantaric and thus relative and limited in scope, or do Buddhists posit an absolute ignorance? >> Speaking as a Buddhist, there is no absolute ignorance any more than there is absolute enlightenment. Ignorance and enlightenment are dualities and both are maya (they only exist in a relative sense). Most Buddhist schools agree with the doctrine of two truths: there is relative truth and absolute truth. >>I understand the Buddhist concept of tanha or "thirst for manifested life" to be said to be dependant upon and conditioned by a sentient being's past karma. I've always heard it spoken of in terms of the personal dimension. Does this also hold true for a sentient being occupying transpersonal dimensions?>> Tibetan Buddhism posits six kingdoms of living beings, humans and animals being only two of these. All six are in karma and all six have a thirst for manifested life. It is this thirst that brings us all here, and keeps us here. There is no Manu or God forcing us to incarnate. >>Is there therefore an absolute original first cause of all manifestation, or is the concept of "first cause" always meant to be understood as manvantaric and thus relative and periodic?>> Depends on the school. However, all manifestation is relative and periodic. Causes have to do with karma, and most schools of Buddhism teach that karma can be consumed. The divine monad is outside of our spacetime solar universe and so is outside of karma, and is neither cause nor effect. The idea that the divine monad is the cause of manifestation and that its gaining of self-consciousness an effect renders it part of karma and IMHO this idea degrades it. Many Theosophists would agree with this idea, claiming karma is "universal law" and so on. This is not a Buddhist teaching. >> Is every universal manifestation the result of some cosmic individual's karma, subject to and conditioned by their continually relative state of enlightenment/ignorance? Would the same be true of all the traditional Buddhist "Poisons"; Ignorance, Lust and Hate? Are these merely the results of a karmically regulated and relatively unenlightened state of manifesting sub-cosmic sentient beings or the very conditions that manifestation in any dimensions of the limitations of Time/Space/Form require? I know that I'm mixing up my cosmic and intra-cosmic analogies in this question. I hope I haven't been too confusing.>> The three poisons are the natural result of assuming a sense of separate identity, a sense of selfhood. So yes, they are universal and found as driving forces behind all worlds in samsara-below the Abyss. Buddha-worlds do not have these poisons. >>Third question: Why would a manifested cosmic "being," in a state of relatively "perfect enlightenment at it's own level," ( compared to any mayavic sub-individualities that arise or "exist" within it's dream of manifestation) desire to manifest into that self-created dream, knowing that it would necessitate a position of ignorance toward it's own true nature while in the limitations of the positions it would inhabit during participation?>> Why do we go to sleep and dream at night? Why do we go to the movies? Why do we read a good novel? Why do we do things that we know will get us into trouble? Why do we take unnecessary risks? These questions have the same answer, but it is one that we each have to find for ourselves. >> Is this a requirement of Manifestation or a choice, like the self imposed rules of a game? Law or choice? >> Again, law and choice are a duality--two sides of the same thing. The divine monad is in non-duality and thus neither law nor choice apply. >>Are there other "games" of manifestation it could play or is it always this one?>> I think that there are countless numbers of games. >> I've heard you say that you believe the impulse for manifestation is the desire for "self expression," but by that do you mean it to be a conscious choice of that supra being or an unconscious natural impulse that it cannot choose to avoid ...>> When I say self-expression I am, of course, making an assumption. Every model must have basic assumptions before they can work. The teaching that a divine monad sends forth a "ray" from itself that enters time and space is a model, and the inherent self-creative ability of that monad is a logical assumption that must be made. HBP assumes 7 planes and 12 globes and monads to populate them, and then goes on from there. These are universe models. If we think that all of the SD is an eloquent literal description of truth, we will get into trouble. >>Is there such a thing therefore as absolute enlightened manifestation or is it always relative to that manifested being's relative state of enlightenment/ignorance and only seems absolute to sub-individualities within that being's sphere of manifestation? What do you believe the goal of that self expression would be?>> All manifestation is maya, relative. There is no such thing as absolute manifestation except in a relative sense. Manifestation, according to HPB, is a gradual series of steps downward into space-time-form. There is no "goal" as such, because goals and purposes and such things are time-dependent concepts. Why would perfection need a goal? Why does Zen suggest that when we finally awake to our spiritual being, we will see our Original Face? >>Fourth question: Why/how does the personal experience of enlightenment equate with the arising of compassion? >> It doesn't. Black Brothers, pretyekabuddhas, and so on also are enlightened. Mahayana Buddhists accuse the Theravadins of lacking compassion, and this is true in a relative sense. Compassion is helpful when crossing the Abyss--transcending our human condition--but not absolutely necessary. The idea of compassion requires a corresponding idea of other living beings in need. >>If the manifested field of opposites must of necessity posit compassion against it's opposite, why does that experience bring about the arising of a motivation toward compassionate action and not it's opposite or does it?<< This is confusing and I have to guess what you mean here. Compassion and selfishness are two polar opposites, and each generates its own corresponding actions. >>Is the transformation into compassionate bodhicitta a direct de facto result of the experience of enlightenment or a personal/individual (re: temperamental) choice or inclination? If a personal/individual choice (one way or the other), how can that be taken seriously in view of the realization of anatman?>> Enlightenment does not require compassion, but usually compassion develops naturally when enlightenment clearly shows others in need. The Theravadin holds to the idea that the notion of other people in need is maya, (which logically it is) and thus sees no need to help. The Mahayana schools teach and encourage compassion in order to avoid selfishness. The doctrine of anatman or an-atma (emptiness of self) is hard to grasp when one has a strong sense of self opposed to others. Compassion helps to eliminate the opposition so that self and others can be united (both are empty of thingness). >>I cite a story I once heard about some Zen practitioners. The master of a certain temple was teaching a young monk about the Dharma. A wandering mendicant came into the temple and irreverently appoached the sanctuary where they stood. The hermit looked at them and then wheeled with contempt and turned to face the elaborately carved statues of the Buddha and Bodhisattvas. He shreiked out loud and violently spat upon the statues. Then he turned around abruptly and left. The young acolyte anxiously questioned his Master, "Sir, why has that man acted so?" The Master replied, "Before enlightenment, some spit and some bow. After enlightenment, some spit and some bow." Why, upon enlightenment, did the Buddha get up and teach?>> There are degrees of enlightenment. But after it, whatever the degree, life still goes on and we must eat and sleep and dress and so on. If one is spiritually selfish (a tricky phrase) one continues on as one did before. But if one is compassionate, one wants to share one's experiences, and the desire to teach/help others arises. >>Next question: If the result of enlightenment is said to be the understanding of the Middle Way, then does that mean non-attachment to pleasue as well as pain, beauty as well as ugliness, enjoyment as well as suffering, love as well as hate, health as well as disease and life as well as death? >> Yes. Enlightenment is equated by most schools as non-duality, the transcendence of duality. Both sides of all dualities have to go. Non-attachment does not mean avoiding or eliminating or hating. It means not getting personally attached. That's all. When you see things as they really are, you won't tend to get attached to them anyway because you will realize their empty nature. >>Should we not affirm and say "Yes" to Life? How does one continue to have a personal and/or emotional life after that experience?<< Enlightenment is seen by some as an escape from samsara or life. The bodhisattva doesn't see it that way, though. They have no desire to escape life, but rather to see it for what it really is. One can see the emptiness of form and still affirm life. Enlightenment or spiritual insight does not kill emotions. But when angry, you will be aware of your anger. When hungry, you will be aware of your hunger, and so on. Most people are not in touch with their emotions at all and so are dysfunctional in their behaviors. Buddhists try to get in touch with emotions, to be aware of them, so that they are not unconsciously controlled by them. This is healthy psychology. >>Last question: I've heard the Dalai Lama say that what we normally consider to be love for a spouse is not true love but attachment.>> In most cases, this is probably true (he did say "normally" which allows for exceptions). >>It makes you wonder then just what is meant by true love and why the image of love is so misrepresented in our culture? >> Every culture has its representations. Jesus said it best when he said greater love has no man than to give up his life for a friend. Our culture tends to equate love with sex, which is sad. >>How should one regard personal and familial relationships? What attitude toward them is correct? How do we participate in the family, in the marriage, in the personal life, etc.? What is the traditional Buddhist teaching for married householders who choose to remain lay people, raise a family and live in the world instead of retreating to monastic life?>> Buddhism is not much different from Christianity or any other religion on family life. Traditional teaching has it that you can't raise a family and become enlightened (the classic book Siddhartha showed how hard it is to be a good parent). However, Ramakrishna took issue with that idea and was married himself. Mental health depends on finding meaning in life. We can easily find meaning in our relationships with families and friends. I do not believe that we need to give up and disown our family. Olcott and Blavatsky both did this, but it was more to found and run the TS than because of being enlightened. When one is enlightened, one usually doesn't care much about one's circumstances, one's financial condition, and so on. These are all karmic conditions that will change in time. Other things become more important, like love and meaning and sharing. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 14:36:10 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Some Questions mark wrote: >> To those of you who feel inclined to speak on behalf of an understanding of traditional Theosophy (as I'm sure there are many), I only ask that for my own clarity, you specify your position as either Theosophic or Traditionally Buddhist. Thanks for your kind indulgence.>> I am *theosophic* I suppose. >> Basically, my question is, it is necessary to struggle against one's "nature" to gain liberation? Or is there a wise and enlightened attitude of understanding and cooperation with nature that is possible? Must we reject and struggle against our nature or seek to understand and accept it to gain liberation? Isn't this what mindfulness (and Jungian Individuation) is all about? >> This is the question Krishnamurti deals with most, I do not think traditional Theosophy (as in HPB) has an answer to that. The way I have understood it so far (it is a very important question obviously that goes to the heart of spiritual life and my understandig is not complete :-) ) is in short: "Don't just do something, sit there". Or: observe what happens, but do not stop acting as life demands action of you. Or again: when you see trouble, you will act, action is natural. Observation is neccessary to come to an action based on all the smaller and bigger aspects of life. That is an answer to the question (which is not precisely what you asked) how to live life so as to gain enlightenment NOW. (this was my understanding of Krishnamurti now follows my understanding of HPB, a lot less interesting on this subject, I think) The way I understand it evolution is a slow process, when it just runs its course it will eventually lead to Buddhahood, according to my understanding of theosophy, but it will take a comparitively very long time. >> i.e., is even the cosmic hierarch of a maha-manvantara conditioned by a superior law of karma,subject to it's own relative ignorance/enlightenment, swabhava and tanha regardless of the manifested dimensions that it would occupy?>> Every thing according to theosophy is subject to the laws of Karma, I don't know how ignorant those higher beings are. Can we know that? > Why, upon enlightenment, did the Buddha get up and teach? Because he loved mankind and the rest of nature. Again, this is as far as I know the theosophical answer, but then, I might have it from a buddhistic source. Certainly the story is that Krishnamurti was asked one day, in one of his last lectures: Why have you gone to all this trouble, lecturing all your life. Krishnaji said: "Because I love you." Katinka ---------------------- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:08:09 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Questions In a message dated 5/20/99 7:12:07 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: > liberation from samsara (not necessarily an escape to nirvana) This misunderstands nirvana, which is not escape or place. Since many also assume nirvana is a state of self-extinction, I address that too. The driving fuel of samsara, which makes the cycle of reincarnation one of compulsion like an out of control tailspin, is tanha. Tanha is usually translated as desire but this is inadequate. Look in the center of the Buddhist Wheel of Life diagram. In the center is a snake, a rooster, and a pig chasing each other. These are the three forms of tanha or its three components. Anger, lust (drive to use others as object, whether sexual or political or whatever), and hunger. Nirvana is the extinction of tanha only. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:24:13 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Some Questions In a message dated 5/20/99 7:12:07 AM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@netgsi.com writes: > The Great Perfection (Dzogchen) > would include nirvana as being maya as well. Only on basis of Nagajuna's form is emptiness, emptiness is form, nirvana is samsara, samsara is nirvana. An technically, maya is not Dzog chen term. Anyway, the idea is that the mind is its own place that can make a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven (the devil does get a few good lines) and it is the mind that is samsaric or nirvanic. Also in the Secret Instruction cycle of Dzogchen (Upadesha) in the Central Asian transmission amongst Kalmucks, it is said that our system is so screwed up that there is no evolution through reincarnation here. Reincarnation is totally caught up by the karma produced by tanha. ONLY AFTER tanha is extinguished (nirvana) and one is enlightened, can an individual from our system join the agenda of the other systems and resume a reincarnating process of spiritual evolution into progressively higher states of being. We are under a cosmic quarantine and not allowed to advance until we are cured of the plague infecting our system. So, isolated by higher agencies from other systems, they have also made it such that reincarnation here is not a series of lessons. Rather, under quarantine, reincarnation for us is just a holding pattern, so to speak, until we are cured. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 08:28:28 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Anonymity >Katinka Hesselink > (formarly known as Katinka; I do not really believe in >anonimity to the extreme... ;-) ) Dear Katinka: Nice to know that you do not believe in anonymity to the extreme. In the Internet maillists, in many cases people are open and do not believe in anonymity; however sometimes one wonders if some of the participants are hiding their real identity under one or more assumed names. While anonymity should not be a problem, it is possible that such anonymity is used by those against a particular cause- like theosophy, or people against a particular organization. Such *undercover* should have no place in a theosophical forums, at least IMHO, if it is currently practiced by anyone. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:12:12 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Forgiveness CNN reports "Forgiveness heals the heart, research hints" Studies funded by the Templeton Forgiveness Research Campaign are trying to monitor and measure the physiological effects of forgiveness and its benefits, taken from the pulpit into the lab. Researchers say there is a physiological reason for forgiveness -- health. At Hope College in Michigan, researchers measure heart rates, sweat rates and other responses of subjects asked to remember past slights. "Their blood pressure increases, their heart rate increases, and their muscle tensions are also higher," said professor Charlotte van Oyen Witvliet. This suggests their stress responses are greater during their unforgiving than forgiving conditions. "In a cooperative system, it is possible that your biggest rival is someone who you will need tomorrow," said Frans De Waal of Emory University's Yerkes Primate Center. =============================================== MKR Comments: In one of the letters to APS, it states in so many words - leave the world and come into our world. It is reported that the Adepts are able to maintain their physical bodies for several centuries. As one of the things which wears out our bodies is due to unnecessary stress. Forgiveness seem to be Their way of life which may be contributing to lack of stress. While in a world where the "eye-for-an-eye" doctrine rules even while preaching Brotherhood and all the virtues, practicing forgiveness 24 hours of the day will be seen unworldly, it is what is best for us even from a physical stand point leaving aside all the "occult" explanation as to what happens in higher worlds and how law of Karma seem to work. May be we can look for a golden age in the world of the future where Brotherhood = cooperation and forgiveness are the ground rules. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:24:54 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Forgiveness .:. CNN reports "Forgiveness heals the heart, research hints" Studies funded by the Templeton Forgiveness Research Campaign are trying to monitor and measure the physiological effects of forgiveness and its benefits, taken from the pulpit into the lab. Researchers say there is a physiological reason for forgiveness -- health. At Hope College in Michigan, researchers measure heart rates, sweat rates and other responses of subjects asked to remember past slights. "Their blood pressure increases, their heart rate increases, and their muscle tensions are also higher," said professor Charlotte van Oyen Witvliet. This suggests their stress responses are greater during their unforgiving than forgiving conditions. "In a cooperative system, it is possible that your biggest rival is someone who you will need tomorrow," said Frans De Waal of Emory University's Yerkes Primate Center. =============================================== MKR Comments: In one of the letters to APS, it states in so many words - leave the world and come into our world. It is reported that the Adepts are able to maintain their physical bodies for several centuries. As one of the things which wears out our bodies is due to unnecessary stress. Forgiveness seem to be Their way of life which may be contributing to lack of stress. While in a world where the "eye-for-an-eye" doctrine rules even while preaching Brotherhood and all the virtues, practicing forgiveness 24 hours of the day will be seen unworldly, it is what is best for us even from a physical stand point leaving aside all the "occult" explanation as to what happens in higher worlds and how law of Karma seem to work. May be we can look for a golden age in the world of the future where Brotherhood = cooperation and forgiveness are the ground rules. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:18:06 -0400 From: "Jerry Schueler" Subject: Where is Nirvana? >> [Jerry]The Great Perfection (Dzogchen) >> would include nirvana as being maya as well. >Only on basis of Nagajuna's form is emptiness, emptiness is form, nirvana is samsara, samsara is nirvana. An technically, maya is not Dzog chen term. Anyway, the idea is that the mind is its own place that can make a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven (the devil does get a few good lines) and it is the mind that is samsaric or nirvanic.> Well, actually, some of the new Tibetan writers are saying that samsara includes physical, astral, mental etc, and nirvana includes spiritual. HPB and CWL both state (can't recall where off the top of my head) that "nirvana" is the third plane downward, and thus the fifth upward--right above the Abyss. Now, is a cosmic plane a place or location? In a sense it is, but in another sense it isn't. Otherwise, I agree with you. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:29:08 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Violence In the wake of recent school shootings, there is much talk about the culture of violence. I found an interesting writeup by a journalist - Ellen Goodman in today's newspaper. The article clearly zeros in the fundamental problem that the public and politicians seems to ignore. ================= Speaking of violence, what about war? It is impolite when everybody around the table seems to have settled into such a comfortable discussion about violence. Side by side we have folks complaining that Republicans are too meek on gun control and Democrats are too weak in countering Hollywood. Now the president has concluded " there are far too many vulnerable children who are steeped in this culture of violence." Something is missing from this discussion.... no one has mentioned the W-word: war. Is it possible that we can understand a culture of violence without talking about war? I do not mean war movies or war video games. I mean the real thing. Over the past weeks, the news has been full of massacre at Littleton adn the bombing of Kosovo -- reports that are simultaneously both stunning and disconnected. This is what sticks in my mind in the aftermath of Columbine High School. Remember Eric Harris' essay in which he portrayed himself as a shotgun shell? A worried teacher went to discuss the violence with Harris' father. But, reported the NY Times, "after the teacher learned that Mr. Harris was a retired Air Force officer and that his son hope to enlist in the military, she concluded that the essay was consistent with his future career aspirations." This teen-ager's hopes and dreams and fantasies and games were about war. As a boy, he and his brother played some variation of "Rambo." On the computer, he and his friends played "Doom" and "Duke Nukem." But it was OK because his 'future career aspirations" were to be a warrior. When Eric heard that we were on the verge of bombing Yugo he told a classmate, "I hope we do go to war. I'll be the first one there." It was only after his rejection by the Marines that Harris turned his high school into a war zone. Have we forgotten the background of the socially acceptable, socially heroic culture of violence: war? We have been reluctant to talk about violence as a boy culture. Mothers will tell you that even sons forbidden to have toy guns will go around the backyard "shooting" with twigs. How many parents train their sons to fight their own battles in the face of bullies? How many of us accept as "boy stuff" the video games that we are now told are virtual training sessions for military de-sensitization? Do we abandon our sons to the culture of violence out of a subconscious agreement that boys may have to be warriors? How many of us raise boys wondering if they will go to war? At times it seems that everything is turned upside down. In Kosovo, we have forgotten that war is hell. We expect "surgical strikes." We call our military on the carpet if they hit a Chinese Embassy or a field of refugees. And we are shocked -- shocked! -- when an American plane goes down and a soldier is killed. War isn't supposed to be dangerous. Indeed, in August we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions that wrote civilized "rules" for the horror that is war. And in Washington, without any sense of irony, our leaders ask simultaneously for more money for bombs and stronger policies for gun control or Hollywood control. The Marines were proud that they kept Eric Harris out of the corps. The system worked! But is not war the system, the career aspiration for a young, disturbed war lover? I am not speaking as a pacifist. I don't think we can stay on the sidelines of every dispute. There are, as well, times for self-defense. War happens. But let us not deceive ourselves. To have a discussion about violence without talking about war is like talking about war without talking about death. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 18:39:54 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Is this theosophy -- Ernest Wood .:.:.:. The very rare book - Is this theosophy? by Ernest Wood is to be republished in June 99 by Kessinger Publications. You can order it directly from Kessinger Pub or from Barnes & Noble. Price $24.95. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 00:05:00 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Ernest Wood Does anyone know when Ernest Wood died? My recollection is it was some time in 1950s. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 00:09:35 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Lectures in San Antonio This evening, Richard Brooks gave an excellent presentation of Theosophy in the most un-dogmatic way. Such presentations are likely to attract inquirers rather than when presentations are made in a very dogmatic way like what you will find in many churches and temples. Members from Houston Lodge were also there attending the Texas Federation Meeting held here during the weekend. They were very appreciative of the lectures that Martin Leiderman delivered in Houston recently. I hope we will see more of the visiting lecturers acting to rejuvenate the activity of the branches in the future. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 18:37:28 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Is this theosophy? -- Ernest Wood The very rare book - Is this theosophy? by Ernest Wood is to be republished in June 99 by Kessinger Publications. You can order it directly from Kessinger Pub or from Barnes & Noble. Price $24.95. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 16:04:34 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Wood's Book - Is this theosophy? At 02:25 AM 5/23/1999 +0100, Dr. A.M.Bain wrote on ti-l: >M K Ramadoss writes >>.:. >>The very rare book - Is this theosophy? by Ernest Wood is to be >>republished in June 99 by Kessinger Publications. You can order it >>directly from Kessinger Pub or from Barnes & Noble. Price $24.95. >> >>mkr >> >All truly theosophical truth-seekers should have this book. I have a rare >original copy (somewhat mutilated) which proved most enlightening. >Wood was at one time secretary to C.W.Leadbeater, and wrote an >excellent book on Yoga (published in the UK by Pelican [Penguin] >Books, and another book on the Seven Rays, at CWL's suggestion. > >He left the Adyar TS after many years when Arundale became >International President (a post for which he was also nominated at that >time). > >Alan According to sources familiar with Wood, it appears that he resigned from TS/TSA when he was living in the Houston, US. Some time later he rejoined. After he rejoined, he wanted to travel and lecture around the USA. It also appears that he was told that for him to be permitted to do so, he has to publicly disown everything he wrote in his book ITT? This seems to be a plausible reason why he could not travel and lecture when he lived in Houston. Obviously, the then organizational leaders did not like many things he wrote in ITT and that may also be one of the reasons why you will rarely see the book in thoeosphical libraries. BTW, it took me over three decades of association with TS before I found out about the book. So I hope the book is a blockbuster. ...mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 21:00:51 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: ML, Collected Works, SD, on CDRom I understand from reliable sources that SD, ML to APS, and Collected Works would be available on CDRom very soon. It looks like all the Theosophical Classics may one day be available in a single or two CDs. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 07:46:51 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: A very rare book republished Kessinger Publication should be congratulated in publishing a very rare book which was originally published in 1936. Ernest Wood worked very closely with Annie Besant and Charles Leadbeater and was one of the tutors of Jiddu Krishnamurti. He was also the private secretary of Leadbeater for several years. Hence he saw the Theosophical Society administration first hand. Very few in the Theosophical organizations have read this book and it was very rare to find it in any library. Anyone interested in the historical facts surrounding Theosophical Society and early days of Jiddu Krishnamurti should read it. Here is a summary of the details. Title: Is This Theosophy? (1936) Author: Ernest Wood ISBN: 0-7661-0829-5 Pages: 318 Price: $24.95 Publisher: Kessinger Publishing Description: Partial Contents: England: Juvenility; Pupilarity; Juniority; Mastery; Fraternity; Mystery. India: Voyage to India; Mother of India; Wonders; Feats; European Yogi; Krishnamurti; An Indian Yogi; Teaching; Woman Who Did not Eat; How to be Happy; Some Public Men; Indian College. The World: Where Beauty Rules; Naughty America; Old Folks at Home; Mercurial Blood; Antipodal Experience; New Apostles; New Krishnamurti; Good Bye Proud World. *** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 13:10:40 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Is This Theosophy? -- Ernest Wood Kessinger Publications which has republished the book - Is this Theosophy? by Ernest Wood has confirmed by e-mail that they are shipping the book. Just for the infomation anyone who would like to know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 04:03:13 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: For whom the bell tolls JRC wrote: >Let them have the official TS. Its almost dead anyway. -JRC Perhaps the TS was meant to die - all things must that refuse or cannot change and adapt. I personally do not see the death of the TS as a "bad" event as any place/group that claims to hog the "Truth" cannot really possess "it." The demise of the TS is, to me, a sign of hope - perhaps it will prod some individuals, including myself, to look more inward than TSward. Kym