From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:08:58 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Sai Baba - Does he claim to be God? wrote: > Dear Katinka: > Where did you read about this? Just interested. And again, the bottom line > is what his followers think of him. Looking at the work that is being done, > by his followers, I have no quarrel with either his being a god or just > another human being. Well, I have read a couple of the books about him. I do not know which, out of the top of my head. Something about Sai Baba, Avatar and psychiatrist? And, no, I do not think that the bottom line is what his followers think about him. His followers think he is an avatar, that much is clear, but there are many small sects that have leaders who claim to be Jesus reincarnate, and their followers believe them, still those sects often do harm. I do agree that his followers do good work though, and that is as good a testimony to his being a genuine spiritual leader as one can come up with. Perhaps that is what you mean. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:16:37 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:36:43 -0500 M K Ramadoss wrote: > I hope so. The bottom line is making theosophy accessible to the world. Its > effect on the world is what counts and not through which channel. > > There is the long standing organizational mind set which seem to pervade > all through the various sections around the world which seem to indicate > that none of the elected national and international official are seen on > the Internet maillists or newsgroups interacting with the theosophical > community. Well, I am an elected secretary of a small lodge in Holland, does that count? > What we see is static web pages (which is mostly one way > communication, akin to print publications) and pictures of some of the > elected officials in some web sites -- I do not know if those pictures are > meant to send any subliminal messages to inquirers? I am also preparing a website, but without any pictures. I think the people in the top seates have a lot on their minds and they are still learning about what the best way is to work on it. We had in Naarden, this summer, a meeting on practical theosophy and the work, for workers, (whith Radha there)and a lot of the discussion was about the internet. I think there should be e-mail-discussion-lists in all vernaculars. But time will surely bring these, I am absolutely confident. The only thing is that organisations are slow, because big, and therefore they change course slowly. But the discussion is alive in TS-Adyar and eventually it will all happen. Katinka (the optimist ! ;-) ) NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:02:03 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Theosophy Questions > lgregory@discover.net wrote: In some ways I am fairly new too the actual membership of the TSA, but in other ways I have had intermittent contact with TSA over a period of forty years. So please excuse my limited background and ignorance. Compared with other similar organizations, I feel there are some strengths in the TSA that might be worth focusing on. Openess and willing to hear new ideas indicate there is potential for growth.> I am glad to find positive aspects of TSA are discussed, because it is a bit depressing to hear only the bad news. 1) Has the Theosophical Society served its historical purpose many years ago? I do not think so, the ethical idea's we members of the TS'es have access to are strangers to western eyes. So even though eastern philosophy is more popular today, it seems to be only superficial. > MKR: I think membership do perform an important role. It is the enthusiastic members who are responsible for the local activities which in turn draw attention to theosophy and in turn bring new members. Also, if we look at the continuing trend of loss of membership, it may not be too long before we end up with a handful of members and that would be end of the TS as we know it. Katinka: would it be the end? I am not sure, because HPB certainly did the work she did with only a handfull of members. Any member can do TS-work, we do not need a large TS for that. A large TS has benefits like the possibility of monitary help and the publishing of books, but I do not think it is absolutely neccessary, however glad I am that I have the TS to work in and not just a small group, the way HPB did. LG: 5) What goals/projects does the TSA have that can mobilize its energies? Katinka: It seems to me that it is our explanations and ethical teaching that makes the TS's different from other organisations, along with the freedom to agree and disagree. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 17:12:10 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India At 11:16 AM 09/02/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:36:43 -0500 M K Ramadoss ramadoss@eden.com> wrote: I hope so. The bottom line is making theosophy accessible to the world. Its effect on the world is what counts and not through which channel. There is the long standing organizational mind set which seem to pervade all through the various sections around the world which seem to indicate that none of the elected national and international official are seen on the Internet maillists or newsgroups interacting with the theosophical community. [Well, I am an elected secretary of a small lodge in Holland, does that count? ] Yes you do count a lot. I hope those at national and international levels follow your example. What we see is static web pages (which is mostly one way communication, akin to print publications) and pictures of some of the elected officials in some web sites -- I do not know if those pictures are meant to send any subliminal messages to inquirers? [I am also preparing a website, but without any pictures. I think the people in the top seates have a lot on their minds and they are still learning about what the best way is to work on it. We had in Naarden, this summer, a meeting on practical theosophy and the work, for workers, (whith Radha there)and a lot of the discussion was about the internet. I think there should be e-mail-discussion-lists in all vernaculars. But time will surely bring these, I am absolutely confident. The only thing is that organisations are slow, because big, and therefore they change course slowly. But the discussion is alive in TS-Adyar and eventually it will all happen.] Glad to know about the interest in Internet. Academic discussions ok upto a point. What is needed is action. Time is rolling past and opportunities would be missed unless one is thinking in terms of manvatara rather than hours and days. Either there is lack of understanding of e-mail etc or not willing to change how business of communicating with membership is done. For example, in the US, TS tried to set up a maillist which is almost dead or is on life support. Why? Because the organization wants to censor all messages and censoring is not considered acceptable by most on Internet. Take another example. While we have several elected national officers/officials, only the e-mail address of the president(general secretary) and secretary who live at the national hq are published. While some of the other elected officers do have e-mail, none of them is published. Why? Is it because of the desire of the HQ to control the flow of info between the membership and elected officials or is it because as a policy TS does not want the directors/officers directly communicating with the membership? We do not know? Also TS has not used e-mail to keep in touch with its membership? Why? Do we need to go Tibet and ask our Real Founders (if we can locate Them) to find out. Like they say house is on fire, with the dwindling membership, not using Internet does not make sense, at least to me an ordinary member with no inside information. Hope some light will shine and help TS use internet/e-mail effectively. ...mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 19:52:52 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Theosophy Questions At 12:02 PM 09/02/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: Katinka: would it be the end? I am not sure, because HPB certainly did the work she did with only a handfull of members. Sure. One person can accomplish a lot. Buddha launced Buddhism. Christ launched Christianity. However have we found another HPB? Not yet. Any member can do TS-work, we do not need a large TS for that. A large TS has benefits like the possibility of monitary help and the publishing of books, but I do not think it is absolutely neccessary, however glad I am that I have the TS to work in and not just a small group, the way HPB did. Agreed. Commercialism has gotten into the TSA. In HPB's days, she did not charge a fee or a love offering or donation to attend her evening meetings or witness any of the phenomenon. Now if you want to attend any of the programs at the National HQ, take your wallet with you. Just visit www.theosophical.org to see the programs and fees. Of course one can come up with 100 reasons why a fee should be charged or a "suggested donation" is very critical. We are falling into the same money trap that churches have developed over a long time. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 23:01:10 From: "Jewel in the Lotus" Subject: New Quote Service from The Jewel in the Lotus Theosophy Library Online has a new daily quote service. In addition to the full text of the four Daily Readings from the Jewel in the Lotus that has been offered since June, there is now an option for a single, short quote of the day, extracted from the Daily Readings. To subscribe to either or both of these email services, please visit http://www.theosophy.org/subscribe.htm. Theosophy Library Online also has the full text of hundreds of theosophical articles by Raghavan N. Iyer, the editor of The Jewel in the Lotus. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 02:56:22 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Theosophy Questions > We are falling into the same money trap that churches have developed over a > long time. > > mkr ..... and falling into the same terminal decline. Alan From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:28:34 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Internet in India > TS has not used e-mail to keep in > touch with its membership? Why? Do we need to go Tibet and ask our Real > Founders (if we can locate Them) to find out. They are all in Devachan. The TS talks about this place, but would seem to have lost any real contact with it. If you want to talk with the gods, you have to go to them. Messengers and avatars are the *least* used methods from the "Master" end of things. As far as I can tell - and sometimes I can - their current view is something like, "They [the TS] have fallen into committees and vanities." > > Like they say house is on fire, with the dwindling membership, not using > Internet does not make sense, at least to me an ordinary member with no > inside information. The Internet is a power-free zone. If those in charge believe they are in authority, rather than working as what they should be, ie, unpaid caretakers, then they will want to retain the authority and the illusory and destructive "power" that appears to go with it. > > Hope some light will shine and help TS use internet/e-mail effectively. All the flying pigs are shining their torches on earth, but to no avail. > > ...mkr On my own website, below, all the info I provide is free, including the Kabbalist teaching. My time is given freely, and I pay for my web space out of my own pocket. Any occultist or student on the Internet can do this, and there is a lot of *free* web space available. All that the organisational TS has to offer is information, and increasing amount of which is available for free download from Internet sites such as the T.U.P. and Blavatsky Net, as well as other occult sites to which there are links from my web site, some of which are those of theosophists of various persuasions. As a comparison, I subscribe to Medpulse, which provides free information relating to medical diseases and phamacological medicines. There is no charge for this service. Here in the UK I can now go to thousands of government web sites and obtain reliable source information, even though we do not yet have a Freedom of Information Act from Parliament yet. For personal reasons, I was able to obtain all the details on the local primary school where I live, including the latest performance statistics. From the police (via fax in this case) I obtained all the local road accident statistics at no charge other than the phone call. A Department of Education document 81 pages long was available for free download (PDF). All for the cost of a phone call. The Internet is HERE, NOW. All we have to do is go find what we want. In their own day, both Jesus and Buddha were here, now, and told their followers to go find what they wanted. If, in their day, you needed Jesus of Buddha, you had to go find *them* in the same way. "Seek, " said Jesus, "and you will find." I'll buy that - mostly for the cost of a local call. No committees necessary. No membership fees. No questions asked, either, other than (sometimes) my name and address. > Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 23:01:11 From: "Jewel in the Lotus" Subject: New Quote Service from The Jewel in the Lotus Theosophy Library Online has a new daily quote service. In addition to the full text of the four Daily Readings from the Jewel in the Lotus that has been offered since June, there is now an option for a single, short quote of the day, extracted from the Daily Readings. To subscribe to either or both of these email services, please visit http://www.theosophy.org/subscribe.htm. Theosophy Library Online also has the full text of hundreds of theosophical articles by Raghavan N. Iyer, the editor of The Jewel in the Lotus. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 08:36:46 -0700 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The September THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The September issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD is out. It's contents are: "Brookings Conference Report," by Wesley Amerman "The Beauty of Reincarnation," by Katherine Tingley "The Wanderings of Odysseus: An Interpretation," Part II, by Charles J. Ryan "The Psychology of Reincarnation," by Ernest Wood "The Destruction of Illusion," by A. Trevor Barker "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "The Struggle Between the Old Views and the New," by Leo Tolstoy "More on the Birthday of the Dhyanis and Other Cyclic Events," by Dallas TenBroeck THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 08:36:13 -0700 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: The September THEOSOPHY WORLD Is Out The September issue of THEOSOPHY WORLD is out. It's contents are: "Brookings Conference Report," by Wesley Amerman "The Beauty of Reincarnation," by Katherine Tingley "The Wanderings of Odysseus: An Interpretation," Part II, by Charles J. Ryan "The Psychology of Reincarnation," by Ernest Wood "The Destruction of Illusion," by A. Trevor Barker "Blavatsky Net Update," by Reed Carson "The Struggle Between the Old Views and the New," by Leo Tolstoy "More on the Birthday of the Dhyanis and Other Cyclic Events," by Dallas TenBroeck THEOSOPHY WORLD is a free Internet monthly available via email (about 100,000 bytes in size). To subscribe, write to editor@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:16:00 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Blavatsky Archives Online This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BEF5F5.5212A9A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Blavatsky Archives Online http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm More items have been added to the Archives in the last week and more = will be added later today: Citizen Helen P. Blavatsky: That Newly Naturalized Personage Explains = Some Interesting Matters. [From The Daily Graphic (New York), July 9, = 1878.]=20 The Kiddle Incident 18 original articles from the 1883-1884 = controversy concerning charges of plagiarism against the Master Koot = Hoomi. More items on this controversy will be added in the near future. The Truth About Madame Blavatsky by Walter A. Carrithers, Jr. = (Published by the Blavatsky Foundation.)=20 More items to come. Daniel Caldwell ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BEF5F5.5212A9A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blavatsky Archives Online
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm

More items have been added to the Archives in = the  last=20 week and more will be added later today:

Citizen Helen = P.=20 Blavatsky:  That Newly Naturalized Personage Explains Some = Interesting Matters.   [From The Daily Graphic (New = York),=20 July 9, 1878.]

  = The=20 Kiddle Incident  18 original articles from the = 1883-1884=20 controversy concerning charges of plagiarism against the Master Koot=20 Hoomi.  More = items on this=20 controversy will be added in the near future.

 The = Truth=20 About Madame Blavatsky by Walter A. Carrithers, Jr.  =20 (Published by the Blavatsky Foundation.)

More items to come.

Daniel Caldwell

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BEF5F5.5212A9A0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:33:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: The Secret Doctrine, Brotherhood and the TS Aug 29th 1999 RE Brotherhood, the TS and its origin and the 1st Object and the SD First Object: Brotherhood Mme. Blavatsky came to America in 1873. She had been sent there by her Master who desired that a first effort be started there. As a preliminary to the presentation of THE SECRET DOCTRINE, (the Text-Book of the 20th Century) a number of steps are to be noticed. Spiritualism had opened men's minds to the fact that within the physical form there were forces at play which physical relationships did not explain. Mme. Blavatsky met Col. Olcott and a number of articles were sent to the press on spiritualism, etc. Theosophy was to explain the facts of spiritualism and the occult laws in Nature that lay behind them. In the autumn of 1875 the formation of the Theosophical Society was arranged and it was inaugurated November 17th 1875 in New York. Col. H. S. Olcott was President. Mme. Blavatsky was Corresponding Secretary, Mr. Wm. Q, Judge was Counsel. These alone of the seventeen original members continued the work of the TS through thick and thin till their death. ISIS UNVEILED was written by HPB with the help of the Masters who contributed many pages. The editing was assisted in by Col. Olcott, Mr. Judge and others. It was issued in 1877 and was an immediate success, so that several printings were made until the original plates were worn out. One of the earliest statements we can find on the Objects of the Theosophical Movement is that of January 20th 1977 by Mme. Blavatsky: "…the object of the Theosophical Society is the cleansing of spiritual truth." [ Modern Panarion, p. 145 A SOCIETY WITHOUT A DOGMA. ] In May 1878, a circular concerning the Theosophical Society was printed in which Col. Olcott said this portion was written by Mme. Blavatsky: "As the highest development, physically and spiritually, on earth of the Creative Cause, man should aim to solve the mystery of his being. He is the procreator of his species, physically, and having inherited the nature of the unknown but palpable Cause of his own creation, must possess in his inner, psychical self, this creative power in lesser degree. He should therefore, study to develop his latent powers, and inform himself respecting the laws of magnetism, electricity and all other forms of force, whether of the seen or unseen universes. The Society teaches and expects its fellows to personally exemplify the highest morality and religious aspiration; to oppose the materialism of science and every form of dogmatic theology, especially the Christian, which the Chiefs of the Society regard as particularly pernicious; to make known among Western nations the long-suppressed facts about Oriental religions philosophies, their ethics, chronology, esotericism, symbolism; to counteract, as far as possible, the efforts of missionaries to delude the so-called "Heathen" and "Pagans" as to the real origins and dogmas of Christianity and the practical effects of the latter upon public and private character in so-called civilized countries; to disseminate a knowledge of the sublime teachings of that pure esoteric system of the archaic period, which are mirrored in the oldest Vedas, and in the philosophy of Gautama Buddha, Zoroaster and Confucius; finally and chiefly, to aid in the institution of a Brotherhood of Humanity, wherein all good and pure men, of every race, shall recognize each other as the equal effects (upon this planet) of one Uncreate, Universal, Infinite, and Everlasting Cause." [Blavatsky, COLLECTED WORKS, Vol. 1, p. 377.] The magazine THEOSOPHIST was started in October 1879 in Bombay, India and a great number of very significant articles appeared in its pages which supplemented the statements and teachings of Occultism found in ISIS UNVEILED. It became clear that a rewriting and enlarging of ISIS was needed. Mme. Blavatsky announced the writing of THE SECRET DOCTRINE. It was contemplated to be issued serially, but it was not issued except as a book in 1888. In the meantime Mme. Blavatsky had moved to London, and the magazine LUCIFER was brought into publication starting in 1887. A number of important magazine articles first published in THEOSOPHIST and LUCIFER will be found to bridge the information gap between ISIS UNVEILED and THE SECRET DOCTRINE. ISIS had been an important review and catalog of occultism in history and in the contemporary the world. The SECRET DOCTRINE exposed, summarized and reviewed the history of Cosmic and Human evolution, as recorded in the secret books maintained by the occult fraternity of Adepts. In 1889 Mme. Blavatsky issued THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, it being a clear exposition in the form of question and answer of the Ethics, Science and Philosophy for the study of which the Theosophical T.S. has been founded. In chapter 2 she states the "Objects" of the theosophical movement: "1. To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, colour or creed. 2. To promote the study of Aryan and other Scriptures, of the World's religion and sciences, and to vindicate the importance of old Asiatic literature, namely of the Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian philosophies. 3. To investigate the hidden mysteries of Nature under every aspect possible, and the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man especially." [ THE KEY TO THEOSOPHY, p. 39, 1889, 1st Edition. ] Of the first all will concede the value of the noblest title: the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. The Great Master is recorded as having said: "he who does not feel competent enough to grasp the noble idea sufficiently to work for it, need not consider a task too heavy for him." Following his Chief, the Mahatma K.H. said that the first object was Philanthropy. "the true Theosophist is a philanthropist-"not for himself but for the world he lives." This, and philosophy, the right comprehension of life and its mysteries will give the "necessary basis" and show the right path to pursue." In another place the Mahatma K.H. said: "Theosophy is no new candidate for the world's attention, but only the restatement of principles which have been recognized from the very infancy of mankind. This historic sequence ought to be succinctly, yet graphically traced through the successive evolutions of philosophical schools, and illustrated with accounts of the experimental demonstrations of occult power ascribed to various thaumaturgists. The alternate breakings-out, and subsidences of mystical phenomena, as well as their shiftings from one centre to another of population, show the conflicting play of the opposing forces of spirituality and animalism…The only problem to solve is the practical one, of how best to promote the necessary study." In ISIS UNVEILED, and eleven years later, in THE SECRET DOCTRINE, the student will find such evidence. But how is this to be developed ? Again the Mahatma offers: "If the psychic idiosyncracy is lacking, no culture will supply it…All you can do is to prepare the intellect: the impulse toward "soul-culture" must be furnished by the individual." Writing to his correspondent, the Mahatma M. explained: "If you cannot be happy without phenomena you will never learn our philosophy. If you want healthy, philosophical thought, and can be satisfied with such--let us correspond. I tell you a profound truth in saying that if you…but choose wisdom all other things will be added unto it--in time. It adds no force to our metaphysical truths that our letters are dropped from space on to your lap of come under your pillow. If our philosophy is wrong a wonder will not set it right. Put that conviction into your consciousness and let us talk like sensible men. Why should we play with Jack-in-the-box; are not our beards grown?" And reinforcing that which Mahatma M. said, the Mahatma K.H. adds: "It is not physical phenomena that will ever bring conviction to the hearts of the unbelievers in the 'Brotherhood' but rather phenomena of intellectuality, philosophy and logic, if I may so express it." Writing to a friend, H.P.B. said: "I do not believe in the success of the - - - T.S unless you assimilate Master or myself; unless you work with me and THEM, hand in hand, heart … Yes; let him who offers himself to Masters as a chela, unreservedly … let him do what he can if he would ever see Them… H.P.B. is an old, rotten, sick, worn-out body, but it is the best I can have in this cycle. Hence follow the path I show, the Masters that are behind-and do not follow me or my PATH." Toward the end of the KEY TO THEOSOPHY, H.P.B. devoted many pages to the "practical" aspect of Theosophy. On page 233 we find the "Enquirer" asking her" "How then, should Theosophical principles be applied so that social co-operation may be promoted and true efforts for social amelioration be carried on?" To this H.P.B. answered, as the "Theosophist:" "Let me briefly remind you what these principles are---universal Unity and Causation; Human Solidarity; the Law of Karma; Reincarnation. These are the four links of the golden chain which should bind humanity into one family, one universal Brotherhood." "The Chiefs want a "Brotherhood of Humanity," a real Universal Fraternity started; an institution which would make itself known throughout the world and arrest the attention of the highest minds." Mahatma K.H. [ ML. 24 ] The SECRET DOCTRINE supplies the metaphysical reasons for, and the proof of, a universal brotherhood, spiritual, intellectual and physical. This is what HPB referred to in the SD (vol. 1, p. 181) where she defines the three lines of Evolution. offered by: Dallas dalval@nwc.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:33:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Some Questions... Aug 31st 1999 Dear Friend Clint Mccrae: Some brief answers are offered, attached below your questions. These are based on Theosophical statements made by HPB. If there is additional information or references wanted, please ask specifically. Dallas dalval@nwc.net ============================================== -----Original Message----- > On Behalf Of clint mccray > Date: Monday, August 30, 1999 11:13 PM > To: all is one > Subject: Some Questions... YOUR QUESTIONS: My answers are in CAPS (Dallas). What exactly are the entities of darkness (evil)? THEY ARE PERVERSE HUMAN BEINGS WHO DELIBERATELY AND KNOWING BETTER, CHOOSE DELIBERATELY TO ACT AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATURE AND BECOME TYRANTS. THEY ARE ALL AROUND US EITHER IN INCARNATION OR IN THE ASTRAL LIGHT. THEY EITHER ACT TO OBSTRUCT OR INFLICT PAIN ON OTHERS, OR THEY WORK THROUGH "INFLUENCE," AND CAN FULLY OR PARTIALLY "OBSESS" OR "TAKE POSSESSION" OF WEAKER HUMAN BEINGS WHO HAVE NOT DEVELOPED A STRONG AND RESISTANT INDIVIDUAL WILL. IN SUCH HORRIBLE CASES THEY CAUSE MURDERS, SUICIDES, GENOCIDES AND TYRANNIES OF GREATER OR SMALLER MAGNITUDES. Where did they come from? FROM AMONG US. THEY ARE HUMAN MIND-SOULS WHO DECIDE TO BREAK THE LAWS OF COOPERATION WHICH PERVADE THE UNIVERSE AND OUR WORLD. ANY TIME THAT WE DO LESS THAN WHAT IS ALTRUISTIC AND NOBLE, W ADD TO OUR OWN TENDENCY TO BECOME SUCH AN EVIL BEING. WE ARE ALL CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME PROBLEM: FREE WILL. FREE WILL IS INNATE TO US AS MIND-BEINGS. THE CHOICE IS TO EITHER COOPERATE WITH NATURE OR STRIVE TO BE SELFISH AND BREAK HER LAW OF BROTHERHOOD. Do they have free-will, and therefore the ability to turn toward the divine? THEY DO. WE DO. WE ARE ALL CAPABLE OF DOING EITHER GOOD OR EVIL. ALL OF US KNOW WHAT THE GOOD LAW IS -- INNATELY IN OUR SPIRITUAL SELVES. IN OUR SPIRITUAL NATURE WE ARE THE LAW. THE HANDS THAT SMITE US ARE OUR OWN. WE ALONE MAKE OUR FUTURE PAIN OR PLEASURE. What is it, in me or anyone else, that opted to turn my life from bad to good? EVERY HUMAN IS A SEVENFOLD BEING. THE HIGHEST ASPECT IS THE ONE SPIRIT. TO MANIFEST, SPIRIT PROJECTS A "LOWER" ASPECT OF ITSELF, WHICH TEMPORARILY ASSUMES THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LIMITATION, FORM, OR "MATTER." THIS IS HIGHLY METAPHYSICAL. THE INDIVIDUAL CONJUNCTION OF THE MANIFESTED "SPIRIT/MATTER" IS NAMED A "MONAD." WITH EACH MONAD IS ASSOCIATED AN ASPECT OF UNIVERSAL MIND. THIS ENABLES IT (AS AN EMBODIED MIND) AT EVERY LEVEL OF ITS PILGRIMAGE, TO PERCEIVE (AT THAT LEVEL) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAW AND NOT-LAW. EACH HUMAN BEING REPRESENTS THE EVOLUTION OF A MONAD THAT HAS ACQUIRED MIND, AND IS THEREFORE MENTALLY FREE-WILLED. EACH IS THE GENERATOR OF HIS OWN KARMA AND HAS TO SETTLE HIS DEBTS ALONE. IT IS YOUR AND MY MIND THAT MAKES CHOICES. WE CHOOSE BECAUSE AT THAT POINT WE ALWAYS KNOW WHAT IS EITHER BETTER OR WORST. HENCE THE APHORISM: "IF IN DOUBT, ABSTAIN." What is the will? A POWER THAT LINKS IDEAS AND THOUGHTS TO ACTIONS. IT OPERATES EVERYWHERE. IN THEOSOPHY IT IS NAMED "FOHAT." TRACE THE REFERENCES TO THIS IN THE SECRET DOCTRINE. IT IS CALLED THE MYSTERIOUS LINK BETWEEN THOUGHT AND ACTION. WHAT MAKES ANYONE OF YOUR MUSCLES MOVE WHEN YOU DESIRE IT TO DO SO? IS IT NOT DESIRE? THEN DESIRE MOVES THE MIND AND AN IDEA OF FUTURE ACTION IS FRAMED. THEN THE MIND SENDS ORDERS TO THE MUSCLES, AND YOU OR I ACT. [ SD II 167 top of page ] Is it bad to undergo past-life regression hypnotherapy? IT IS USELESS SINCE THE ESSENTIAL LIFE POWERS ARE WITH US RIGHT NOW AS INHERENT IN OUR MIND AND SPIRITUAL SELF. REGRESSION IS CURIOSITY SEEKING. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA HOW TO USE IT? REGRESSION MAY OR MAY NOT OPEN SOME CORRIDORS OF MEMORY THAT ARE RELATED TO THE PAST PERSONAL LIFE. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME DOUBT ABOUT THIS SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE IN SUCH TRANCE OR HYPNOTIC CONDITIONS TO BE A WITNESS TO THE EVENTS OF ANOTHER'S LIFE -- IMPACTED IN THE ASTRAL LIGHT. IN TRANCE WE ARE NOT POSITIVE AND HAVE NO FULL SELF-CONTROL. WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE OPERATOR, AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIS MOTIVES OR INTERESTS ARE. IT IS A "LEAP IN THE DARK" AND IS DISCOURAGED AS DANGEROUS. Is sex outside of lifelong commitment wrong? EACH IS TO ANSWER THAT FOR THEMSELVES. THEOSOPHY OBSERVES: SEX EXPERIENCE ENTAILS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TAKING CARE OF SUCH CHILDREN AS MAY ENSUE. IF WE ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE BECAUSE WE ENJOY THE SENSATION, IT IS NOT VERY ELEVATING TO SPIRITUAL PROGRESS, IS IT? ALSO, WHO TAKES RESPONSIBILITY? DO WE THINK IT FAIR FOR THE OTHER PARTNER TO BE SADDLED WITH OUR CHOICES AND ACTIONS? DO WE "WASH OUR HANDS" OF THE RESULTS? IS THIS NOT EMINENTLY SELFISH AND CARELESS? IF SO WOULD YOU NOT CLASSIFY IT WITH "EVIL?" Love (human) has its joys and sorrows, the Love of the Adept seems to be objectional and painless. Is the first to be embraced or shunned? The general love for someone else, without personal attachment, is this the closest I have come to the love of the Adept? If not, then give me a real life, laymen incarnation example of something similair. THE LOVE OF A MOTHER FOR HER CHILDREN. THE LOVE AND PROTECTIVE FEELING OF EVERY TRUE MAN FOR HIS WIFE AND FAMILY. THE LOVE OF A TRUE PATRIOT FOR HIS COUNTRY. ALL THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF NATURAL AND GENEROUS LOVE OFFERED AS A DUTY AND A SACRIFICE ON THE ALTAR OF A VOW, OF A COMMITMENT OF INDEFINITE AND CONTINUING RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS. THESE ARE IDEALS, AND IN PRACTICE THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF DEGREES OF FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE IDEAL RECTITUDE THAT IS IMPLICIT IN MARRIAGE, PARENTHOOD, CITIZENSHIP. SINCE WE ALL REINCARNATE AND MAY BE IN SUCCESSIVE LIVES MEN OR WOMEN, CITIZENS OF MANY COUNTRIES IN SUCCESSION, OUR MOST IMPERSONAL CONCEPT OF LOVE OUGHT TO EMBRACE THE WHOLE OF HUMANITY. EVERY WOMAN IS EITHER OUR MOTHER, OUR DAUGHTER, OR OUR WIFE -- AND OUGHT TO BE INSTINCTIVELY TREATED WITH THE RESPECT DESERVED AND OWED TO SUCH A RELATIONSHIP. ALL COUNTRIES , AND ALL RELIGIONS, HAVE OR WILL BE OUR COUNTRIES AND OUR RELIGIONS -- OUR PATRIOTISM IS THEREFORE BEST DIRECTED AT THE WHOLE WORLD AND THE FAMILY OF MAN. RELIGION DIVIDES INSTEAD OF UNITING, BUT IF WE INVESTIGATE THE CORE AND ORIGIN OF EVERY RELIGION WE WILL FIND THAT IT REPRESENTS A CODE OF UNIVERSAL ETHICS. THEOLOGIANS DO NOT INVITE SUCH SEARCH AS THEIR "AUTHORITY" WOULD VANISH AND EACH MAN WOULD DISCOVER THAT HE IS "A PRIEST UNTO HIMSELF." THE BEST RELIGION IS HONESTY AND DOING GOOD. THOMAS PAINE, WASHINGTON'S FRIEND AND COUNCILOR SAID: "THE WORLD IS MY COUNTRY, AND TO DO GOOD IS MY RELIGION." I THINK THAT SAYS IT ALL. If the universe gives us knowledge only when we are ready for it, then why even try to understand? The information and processing will take place when it's time. THAT IS THE LAZY MAN'S HOPE. THE WORLD DOES NOT RUN INTO IMMOBILITY AND INERTIA. IT IS A DYNAMIC HARMONY. WE ARE PART OF THAT. LAZINESS, THE CONCEPT OF ESCAPISM, OF OBLIVION, OF SOME NIRVANA OF NOTHINGNESS IS THE PATHWAY TO BECOMING AN EVIL BEING BECAUSE WE TRY TO SUBVERT (FOR OUR OWN SELFISH PLEASURE) THE POWER OF TOTAL PROGRESS. CARRIED TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION THIS RESULTS IN THE "PRATYEKHA BUDDHA" -- THE BUDDHA OF SELFISHNESS OF WHICH THE "VOICE OF THE SILENCE" SPEAKS AT THE VERY END OF THE SECTION NAMED: "The Two Paths." - p. 47. Does anyone feel like they almost have a grasp of what's happening, like you are just barely able to look over the wall of the secret garden, and you've even seen some little peeks, but not the whole thing at once? YES THANKS TO OUR EVERY PRESENT SPIRITUAL PERCEPTION AND THAT IS DUE TO THE MONAD -- SPIRIT, MATTER AND MIND -- WORKING AS A UNIT. THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL WE. Are any of you actually helping anyone in this life? I, YOU, EVERYONE TRIES TO AT SOME TIME, SOME MORE THAN OTHERS. Do you do your best to only think good thoughts? AGAIN EACH HAS TO ANSWER FOR THEMSELVES. SEARCH YOUR OWN MEMORIES. EVALUATE YOUR OWN MOTIVES. CONSULT YOUR FUND OF KNOWLEDGE, WISDOM, HOPES, AND SEE IF THERE IS SOME POINT OF OBSERVATION THAT REQUIRES ANY EVIL TO BE DONE BY YOU ? WHAT IS IT IN US THAT INSTIGATES "EVIL?" TO MAKE ANY REAL CHANGE THIS HAS TO BE LEARNED. HAVE YOU READ Edwin Arnold's THE LIGHT OF ASIA ? IT IS THE LIFE OF BUDDHA. THERE YOU WILL FIND LUCIDLY DESCRIBED THE TRIALS THAT CONFRONTED HIM, AND WHICH ALSO CONFRONT US. WE ARE ALL POTENTIAL BUDDHAS. DARE WE MAKE OURSELVES INTO SUCH? THE CHALLENGE FACES US ALL. Are you real with yourself, or is this just another thing you do to try and prove meaning and position in a mixed-up world? IF BY "REAL" YOU MEAN HONEST, THEN WE HAVE TO TRY TO BE SO. IT MAY NOT BE EASY BECAUSE OUR EMBODIED MIND HAS LEARNED HOW TO BE SELFISH AND ENJOYS THAT CONDITION OF TEMPORARY FREEDOM. IT TRIES VERY HARD TO GUARD AND MAINTAIN THAT. THIS IS WHAT MAKES YOU QUESTION, AND ALSO DESCRIBES THE STRUGGLE THAT CONFRONTS ALL OF US LL THE TIME AS HUMAN BEINGS. How many of us are wealthy? WEALTH IS A STATE OF MIND AND NOT OF POSSESSIONS. SOME WHO ARE MONEY-RICH ARE VERY POOR IN SPIRIT AND MOTIVATION AND USUALLY ARE INTENSELY SELFISH. THEOSOPHY ADVOCATES AS A PRACTICAL IDEAL TRUSTEESHIP. Do you spend more time with your computer than with actual people (outside of work)? YES AND NO -- FOR SOME THE COMPUTER ALLOWS THE GATHERING OF INFORMATION THAT ONE CAN DRAW ON IN THE FUTURE. FOR SOME IT IS A CONTACT WITH PEOPLE - e-mail, INTERNET, ETC... Do you have mood swings, and have you ever been a religious zealot, and what does that mean about you? EVERYONE HAS EXPERIENCED "MOOD SWINGS" AS THE EMBODIED DESIRE NATURE INSTIGATES THEM. THE FACT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DETECT THEM SHOWS THAT THE EXPERIENCE OF A "MOOD" IS ONLY A PASSING PHASE AND THAT THE "REAL MAN" INSIDE IS ABLE TO CONSIDER THOSE AS SUCH. A "RELIGIOUS ZEALOT" IS A CLOSE MINDED FANATIC THAT HUGS HIS IGNORANCE AND IS AFRAID TO EXPAND HIS MIND IN THINKING OF ALTERNATIVES. HOW ELSE WOULD YOU DESCRIBE ANY KIND OF ZEALOTRY A TYRANT IS A ZEALOT. WHO WANTS A NARROW AND CIRCUMSCRIBED MIND WHEN THE WHOLE WORLD IS OUR PLAYGROUND? Do you really know anything? YES I KNOW THREE THINGS; 1. I EXIST. 2. YOU AND THE REST OF THE UNIVERSE EXISTS. 3. THERE IS AN ONGOING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MYSELF AND YOU AND ALL THE REST. THESE THINGS ARE OBVIOUS. HAD YOU SOME OTHER MEANING ? Some of these questions are for yourself to answer, some I would like the answers posted. My answers to these questions were not so good, I'm not pointing fingers, just some things to think about. UNDERSTOOD -- LIKEWISE WITH THESE ANSWERS. EVERY ONE OF US HAS TO TEST THESE THINGS OUT FOR THEMSELVES. THIS IS WHAT THEOSOPHY AND ITS STUDY ENCOURAGES. IT IS BASED ON THE CONCEPT THAT THE SPIRIT IS ONE AND IT RESIDES IN THE CORE OF OUR OWN BEING, AS IT DOES IN EVERY OTHER. THE FORMS THAT YOU AND I OBSERVE ALL AROUND US ARE EXAMPLES OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNDERSTANDING ASPECT OF PROGRESSION. THE ONE SPIRIT SEES NOTHING AND DOES NOTHING. THE SPIRIT WHEN DIVIDED INTO 2 SIMPLY IS DIVERGENCE -- THAT ALSO DOES NOTHING EXCEPT ACT. THE MIND ASPECT OF THE UNIVERSE FRAMES THE FIRST GEOMETRICAL STRAIGHT LINE SURFACE -- IT THEN ALTERS BY THE ADDITION OF 3 MORE LINES INTO THE FIRST SPACE AND THAT IS A TRIANGULAR PYRAMID. THE SPHERE IS ALSO A LIMITATION, BUT IT REPRESENTS EITHER CONTINUITY OR A MULTITUDE OF DISCONTINUITIES ALL FIRMLY UNITED INTO ONE. FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW IT IS A VALUABLE SYMBOL. IT IS BOTH CENTER AND CIRCUMFERENCE AT THE SAME TIME -- DIMENSIONLESS. THE STRAIGHT LINE HAS A BEGINNING AND AN END -- HENCE YOU HAVE THE PERCEPTION OF LINEAR AND SPHERICAL LIMITS IN DURATION AND THAT IS "TIME." ALL THIS IS EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE, PERCEPTION AND PURPOSE -- AND EACH OF US HAS THIS IN OPERATION. WE ARE EACH OF US A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIVINE, SEEKING THROUGH ALL KINDS OF EXPERIENCES TO PROVE ITS EXISTENCE AND THUS TO MAKE OURSELVES TOTALLY INTELLIGENT AND PURPOSEFUL AS BEINGS WITH A UNIVERSAL SPACE IN WHICH TO LIVE AND ACT WITH ALL THE REST -- EVERYONE ELSE HAS THE SAME LIMITS AND PURVIEW -- HENCE, THE GREAT SHARING OF BROTHERHOOD. Best wishes to you, Dallas From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:33:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: FW: Theos-World What does Theosophy have that others don't? Sept 3rd 1999 Dear Friend: I thought the enclosed might be interesting to you to consider and perhaps comment on. Best wishes, Dallas dalval@nwc.net ====================================== -----Original Message----- > Subject: RE: What has Theosophy to offer that others don't? > From: On Behalf Of W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 Sept 2nd 1999 Dear Friends: Thanks -- enjoyed reading the discussion. I would say off-hand that there is a wide difference between psychic transmissions of information that is deemed to be possibly "spiritual" and those that are truly spiritual because of their innate worth and continued validity. No matter how letters or messages are said to be transmitted, it is the content alone that determines if they are "in line" with the "Message" of the Mahatmas. The phenomenal delivery is a distraction. As you can see from the history of the TS and its members -- all that which has followed such revelations. It was the personal and the psychic that produced divisions. It was not the philosophy. Nor can the philosophy be held responsible for personal shortcomings. Those who have studied it, know that it is coherent and is an expression of the facts and operations of nature as a vast cooperative which takes into account every least part of the One Being. HPB and Theosophy appeal for UNITY. A unity of what ? Names and numbers? I think not, but a unity in devotion to the CAUSE of Theosophy -- which is the enlightenment of the human race. It is a personal dedication of the wisdom that the wise may acquire through their study of Theosophy, for the benefit of mankind as a whole. And, especially for the present cycle of evolution which involves us all. All true wisdom is a gift. Students have to learn how to apply it in their own lives. It cannot be done for them. Nor can their mistakes be mitigated by anyone but themselves. Karma demands that. Why is there wisdom and learning in the world? Is it not given to inspire those who access it to a higher level of living? Do these not speak to the achievements that have already been made and which encourage us to emulate in effort those who have preceded us? Are we not faced with the inquiry: "Why is everything not better for us and the World, if such knowledge is available?" Then, we wonder how it is possible that we find ourselves, in general, in difficulties, and we meet circumstances that are painful and troublesome. If one carefully reads the FIVE MESSAGES (from HPB to the American Conventions, 1888 to 1891) that becomes very clear. But this practical application is not set out in the form of rites, rituals or methods. Principles are given to consider and apply if the student finds them reasonable. Having shown the reason -- BROTHERHOOD, based on the ONE SPIRITUAL SOURCE -- that every being shares in, HPB leaves it to the aspirants to determine how they will proceed each in his own way, but, hopefully each will be inspired to achieve a greater unity to the rest. Then, if firmly applied, in a cooperative manner, that lead to a progress that all share in. It is "diversity within certain limits" that makes for the real strength of the Theosophical Movement. A "Unity of units." But the sameness is not one of ritual or rote, it is an interior one of the "heart." All hearts are aimed individually at a common objective: to become WISE. One has to learn the difference between the "Head (or "Eye") Doctrine -- which is all head learning and memory, and that of the "Heart" or Buddhi-Manasic Doctrine -- which is the one that weighs the moral and ethical value of all acquired (Head) learning, and alters that into discriminative wisdom when the applications are grasped. Then all relationships become a "contest of smiles" as devotees seek to assist each other and learn to trust and view all events as opportunities to be shared. This is what brings to life the ideals that shine through each other's eyes and willing hands. Nothing is ever imposed, but only suggested, or evoked. Controversy begins when this remains unresolved. The inability to resolve is when the student cannot perceive whether the communication is one that is "in line" with the "original impulse," the "original method," and the "original objects." I know this sounds awfully vague, but the aspirant to secret and occult wisdom using the hints that Theosophy offers, has to make himself into the "key" that will open the Gates of Gold. He alone can do this for himself. The "Guru" may point the way, (HPB has done this repeatedly) but, the adoptions and applications depend on the student's ability to study and understand what he has been shown. He alone (by choices he makes himself) determines his own future and fate. The presence or absence of the Master" is not relevant, as the Master with his powers and constant concern for the inner development of the disciples is able at any time to cognize the nature of the student's mental and moral state. The student ought never to anticipate the Masters' physical presence -- it is unnecessary. These things have to be most deeply thought over. No one can make true progress in Theosophy without devoting some time daily to its study and consideration -- as a duty not to enhance ones' self-elevation, but as a debt that is due to humanity as a whole -- so as to "point out the way" whenever needed. Take HPB or the Masters -- ask simply: Are they alive and present now? If Immortality and reincarnation are facts, then They Are. Next: why do they not manifest? Is it not because they have left a "Teaching" that is first to be LEARNED AND ASSIMILATED BY THOSE WHO MIGHT HOPE TO "SEE " THEM? Those who hold the ideal of HPB or the Masters in their hearts are with them all the time. They dedicate their lives to working for Theosophy in the world. They do not need physical or even psychic manifestations to assure themselves of that continued Presence. Read the history of HPB's phenomena and the few doubters that were never convinced of its honesty. This is why phenomena were discontinued. Sinnett profited the most, but even to the last he remained a phenomenalist and eventually turned against HPB -- what a pity. And so too Theosophical History reveals, did Olcott. No wonder that the TS split and split again into factions and now is almost wholly political keeping together a shell of the original, and almost none of its original impulse, except in name. Draw together all that the literature offers on Initiation, on the major teachings of Theosophy and you will find that this is what can be culled from it. It is never a matter of superficial, or external reading that can do this. At best (in reading alone) one becomes very learned -- in terms of memory in regard to any philosophy or "-ism." But that does not necessarily give "depth." The "Heart Quality" has to be apprehended intellectually, and then aspired to. >From there the practice of discovery has to proceed. Thinking carefully about statements made in THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE helps in this. Patanjali makes clear the distinction between the powers of the "embodied mind" and those that are the powers of the immortal, the spiritual Mind. But even there, those are not clear unless one realizes that Patanjali is hinting at the moral universe and the continual impact of the personal volition and motive on the nature of our thinking and our desire nature. The doctrine of the "Skandhas" is to be seen applied here. Each of the Skandhas (the life-atoms) is also a Monad. Each of those as we use them are impressed with our thought-feelings. It goes out into the world and attaches itself successively to places and persons with which it also has earlier karmic relations, and influences them. Eventually it returns to us. The cycle of such return may be rapid or slow, depending on its nature and the adjustments that are constantly made by Nature with all the rest of our active Karma. Considering this one important fact that unites us on the psycho-mental plane with the rest of living nature, it can be surmised that no portion of our selfishness can possibly remain without tainting the nature and the aspiration of the disciple. The "key" so formed is imperfect and the "Gates" refuse to unlock. How is such a statement to be understood? How does it relate to our ability to access the Masters? Does it serve as a possible barrier? The laws of esotericism and occultism require of each of us an alteration in our motives and outlook on living. If we are immortals along with everything else, then all we do, think and feel adds or deducts from our rate of individual progress. But it is essential to first grasp an idea of what the Goal may be and whether we are actually in search of THE ONE GOAL, or of some idealized, personalized and selfishly aimed achievement, eminence or "power." In that Occultism that Theosophy speaks about, only the most universal, ideal, harmless, and unselfish motives have to become the basis for our personal living. If these are adopted, and we train ourselves to do this, then there is a complete change in our life and outlook. Then access to the "Masters" becomes easily attained, for "we will see Them everywhere." As a thought to be meditated on, we can consider that the Master is always potential within ourselves, and is temporarily imprisoned by our personality. In HPB's TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE, pp. 66 to 76 this is described, as the HIGHER SELF is the ATMA -- the MASTER within. In the 2nd volume of the "Secret Doctrine" HPB tells us how at a certain stage of evolution the physical forms and personalities that were "ready" received the "Light of Mind" from the Dhyanis -- the Wise, and those whose duty it was, sacrificed themselves to serve the evolving Mind-man as an internal Witness and a constant mentor and encourager of our better natures. This is perhaps one of the most encouraging as well as the most important doctrines. [ see SD II 167, 79-80, 93-4, 272, 254-5; SD I 539fn 182 207 ] With this as inspiration how can we falter or doubt further? HPB wrote a number of significant articles that ought to be carefully studied in this regard. LODGES OF MAGIC, Lucifer, Oct. 1888, MAHATMAS AND CHELAS, Theosophist, July 1884, ARE CHELAS MEDIUMS? Theosophist, June 1884, CHELAS, Theosophist, October 1884, THE THEOSOPHICAL MAHATMAS, Path, December 1886, CHELAS AND LAY CHELAS, Supplement to Theosophist, July, 1883, PRACTICAL OCCULTISM, Lucifer, April, May 1888. OCCULTISM VS. THE OCCULT ARTS, Lucifer, May 1888, SPIRITUAL PROGRESS, Theosophist, May 1885, IS THE DESIRE TO LIVE SELFISH? Theosophist, July 1884, Mme. BLAVATSKY ON "THE HIMALAYAN BROTHERS", Spiritualist, London, August 12, 1881 CAN THE MAHATMAS BE SELFISH? Theosophist, August 1884, Why worry about "modern saints?" How would we recognize one? Do we have any knowledge of what a real "saint" looks like, or does, or says ? One of the most serious points to consider is that if one ever proclaimed himself/herself as such (or if HPB ever "returned" and said "I am HPB who has returned to help and guide the Theosophical Movement") who would believe them, or her ? There would be undoubtedly a rush of the curious and the skeptics -- and all the superficial things, every thing written about HPB (or saints) would be set out for comparison with the present claimant. The importunities of these curious and skeptics would make life impossible for such a claimant. Further, would such a claimant be able to do any significant work if so encumbered with publicity and curiosity seekers? It is probably the last thing that any real worker who desired to help the Theosophical Movement would do. So if we are impelled to go out an seek for "saints," or those who have truly helped the Theosophical Movement, let us look at that which has been done to support and enhance the ORIGINAL PROGRAM ,and all that, without any personal publicity whatsoever. Each one of us is held, because of the nature of our 6th and 7th "Principle" (Wisdom and Spirit) to be, potentially, a "saint." There is a clue to this in our "Seven-fold Nature -- the 7-Principles" We are a part of the ONE SPIRIT in our highest nature, and also being immortals we carry with us all the time in the principle named Buddhi a memory of all our honorable past. In this life of ours, theosophy points to these facts and gives the logic and metaphysics especially in the explanations of the SECRET DOCTRINE to apprehend them. It is the embodied mind that we call "Lower Manas" (or Kama-Manas) technically that is presently active in us. It is moved by desire (SD II 176 top). The quality of our desire ( Kama ) is entirely within our grasp. It is "WE" -- the embodied CONSCIOUSNESS" (if we choose to aspire to act and live as our own Buddhi-Manas would, if allowed by our personality) who are able to transform the ordinary embodied mind -- a Monad that is curious, doubtful, ambitious, prideful, pleasure-loving and inertia-desiring, into the superior mind that is studious and also ideally directed, and hence, ethical in all respects. The "lower mind" does not permit this without a fight -- something that Krishna illustrates to Arjuna in the BHAGAVAD GITA. (see chapters 14, 17, 18) There he speaks of the 3 great Gunas, the 3 components of the Universe: 1. SATTVA -- Light, Spirit, Truth; 2. RAJAS -- desire - activity - passion; and, 3. TAMAS -- inertia, indolence, procrastination . One can see when they are combined in various ways, the whole gamut of human mind and desire (psychological patterns) are described. Chapters 17 and 18 further emphasize this study and the transformations that the student can make within his own nature. Among these there is always the ONE UNIVERSAL SPIRIT, and its "ray" the Atman which is always interior to us and represents the apex of universality -- our HIGHER SELF. From this is derived CONSCIOUSNESS. It is the one unchangeable perceptive ray of intelligence that pierces up and down through the several planes of our being and unites the 6 lower principles into a coherent active and living whole. It is the Human Consciousness that is able in a detached way to perceive each of these separately, and all in their combinations. This one most significant and important FACT, gives a clue to that which Patanjali in his YOGA SUTRAS develops, and there, one may find that he describes, as in a catalog, the various and successive states of psychology (personal and selfish, as well as unselfish, noble and universal) of the embodied personal man. There too, will be found described the potentials that any man can develop or attain to. The whole secret is to seize and control the wandering mind (desire driven) stabilize it, focus it, and make it subservient to our will. Desire has to be firmly curbed and brought under control. It is only a tool of the Spirit that resides within -- and as such it is not the ruler, although for most of us humans at our present stage, it seen that the desire-principle has subverted the mind and diverted attention from the task of becoming WISE. To be able to describe the statements made by these old philosophers is excellent progress. The study of an interpretation of the meaning of ancient scriptures is important, but, as HPB shows repeatedly in the SECRET DOCTRINE, we will always need a "key" that pierces through the veils of symbolism and the "blinds" that reflect the inquirer away from the Truth that may be inherent and concealed in such veils. Theosophical wisdom, being the root of all these systems in antiquity, now shows how they were devised and how to pierce through to their basic meaning and intention. The SECRET DOCTRINE provides this. To make practical applications in and through ourselves is the next step. This is what HPB was aiming at showing. It begins with the idea of immortality and perfectibility as a goal. and the process of (Higher) self-advancement is to be found through the active practice of universal brotherhood in one's daily life so that it becomes automatic. In developing the qualities that are represented to us as the "Virtues," we must first become impersonal and universal in our outlook, and the first thing that is noticed, is that we become absolutely harmless to all other beings that we live and cooperate with. This means becoming a cooperator with Nature. There is no other way. But each is as a free-willed being able to frame their own rate of progress. The result of our independent thinking and choosing either raises and accelerates our progress, or delays and diverts it. The teachings of Theosophy are aimed at encouraging each of us to work out the psychology of our own natures, and having discovered what is the prime motivator (the desire) in ourselves, proceed to modify or enhance those factors that will lead to ultimate true progress and victory. It is said that only those that are universal and harmless to others survive; and they form the vesture of the True Spiritual Man -- which is the Highest in Us. We are the "Gods" that are "in the making." We "make" ourselves. And, we are assisted when necessary. The presence of Theosophy is of such a general assistance. Can we seize and use it ? In the SECRET DOCTRINE, pages in Vol. 1, 570-573 gives us an idea of the importance of our potential development and the range of achievement that is ours for the winning. We have to realize that the ideas and principles that Theosophy advances are neither novel ,nor are they designed to provide "powers" for our selfish use and abuse. The power of special knowledge is easily abused by the thoughtless and the unscrupulous. The thoughtless do not consider themselves to be responsible immortals. The unscrupulous desire to give their own present personalities all the benefits that make for superiority at any cost over their fellows. they have no concept of the eventual cost of such an objective to themselves. Neither of these two types have any consideration for the setting of their life as of now. Further they do not care anything for the possible ease or discomfort that may be caused by them to others around them. They are selfish grabbers, and have no sense of generosity, nor do they feel any gratitude for whatever they have received from anyone. This is not the "path" that Theosophy either traces or encourages. If we desire to learn from the experiences and work of others, we observe them, not to try and attribute motives to them, but to view their achievements. There is this to always remember: in all the work that has to be done, we alone are the fashioners and executioners of our own progress. It is so in ordinary life and education even within the realm of our present experience in this life, if we will reflect upon it. In the Life of the Soul there is always embraced the needs and obligations that one owes to others as a part of our personal working considerations. Our very special debt to the HIGHER SELF, and to the DHYANI who has overshadowed us ought to urge us to the highest possible kind of living and excellence. I hope this may be of help Dallas. ================================= Dallas dalval@nwc.net -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of Richtay@aol.com > Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 7:55 AM > Subject: Theos-World What does Theosophy have that others don't? In a message dated 9/2/99 1:03:06 AM, lgregory@discover.net writes: << The Terma tradition I think could be transferred to the finding of the Nag Hammadi Scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the recent Kheroshti script scrolls in Afganistan. As to the Masters and the transmission or channeling of material to HPB and Alice Bailey as well as Madame Roerich and others, I think it has been not a true Terma Tradition (my opinion) but a discrediting of truth in some ways... it sought to fill the gaps as Dallas would say, but it has caused controversy and is not in my opinion as verifiable as legitimate discoveries being made in central asia and elsewhere >> Yes, Art -- then we agree completely. And I also think you make a good point in the previous email to Dallas about modern saints. Theosophy does seem to have become frozen at around 1890. But yet we like to claim that Masters are active all the time. So this seems like a contradiction. Without HPB and Judge to speak for us, many seem quite frightened to point to modern Theosophical efforts when then proceed outside our lodges. I agree that the work of Besant, Leadbeater, Bailey, Roerich and others, while perhaps helpful in some way, has been more "altering" of Theosophy, and not "renewing" like true Termas. The damage done by such schisms is well nigh incalculable, though quite predictable (even predicted by HPB herself in her own writings). But we must not be afraid to see our Masters' work in the present world. Many will agree with me, I think, when I point out that Sri Aurobindu, Paramahansa Yogananda, Satya Sai Baba, Mohandas Gandhi, the current Dalai Lama and many others have come out of India (to name just one location) who are almost certainly doing some aspects of Masters' work. I think we should not hesitate to join forces with such personages, their followers and their organizations, and see how we can help humanity jointly. I am very disappointed to find that, in the main, Theosophy this century has tended to be insular, pretending to have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- and waiting for the world-weary to show up on its doorsteps. The problems is: there are a great many doorsteps to show up on, and it is becoming more and more difficult to make the case that Theosophy stands head and shoulders above the rest! So I ask the group, what does Theosophy have to offer that no readily accesible spiritual group today has? I would be very interested to hear replies. Rich -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 14:45:43 PDT From: "Joshua Gulick" Subject: The Ankh Dear friends, My name is Joshua Gulick. I'm fairly new to this discussion list. I was wondering if you knew the purpose of the ankh shape? I knew that the ankh must have been more than just a symbol. So I meditated upon it for a while... exploring it physically with my mind. To my joy, I realized that the ankh is the shape necessary to create a magnetic monopole. There are a few other shapes which I later discovered, but the ankh seems to be the most efficient. It works by cancelling out one magnetic pole while leaving the other intact. I put pictures and stuff like that about it up on my site at http://www.stormloader.com/joshua So, do theosophists know about this? I couldn't find anything about it in the literature. God bless, Joshua Gulick From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:41:46 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India MKR wrote: [For example, in the US, TS tried to set up a maillist which is almost dead or is on life support. Why? Because the organization wants to censor all messages and censoring is not considered acceptable by most on Internet. Take another example. While we have several elected national officers/officials, only the e-mail address of the president(general secretary) and secretary who live at the national hq are published. While some of the other elected officers do have e-mail, none of them is published. Why? Is it because of the desire of the HQ to control the flow of info between the membership and elected officials or is it because as a policy TS does not want the directors/officers directly communicating with the membership? We do not know? Also TS has not used e-mail to keep in touch with its membership? Why? Do we need to go Tibet and ask our Real Founders (if we can locate Them) to find out.] You are right, this does not sound right. The most positive way to explain it is that they just do not know how democratic the internet of neccessity is. They are not tuned into the spirit of the Net. Let Us Pray They Will One Day Know Better. ;-) Katinka [Hope some light will shine and help TS use internet/e-mail effectively.] Amen. --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: hesse600@tem.nhl.nl List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net --- End Forwarded Message --- NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 12:46:00 -0400 From: John E Mead Subject: The Ankh >My name is Joshua Gulick. I'm fairly new to this discussion list. welcome Joshua! > I was >wondering if you knew the purpose of the ankh shape? >while leaving the other intact. I put pictures and stuff like that about it >up on my site at http://www.stormloader.com/joshua > I visited your web site, and read your ankh section. your simplest 'monopole' magnetic field can be constructed from a bar magnetic and iron ring. just place the ring on top of the bar magnetic to form the ankh (leaving the cross bar out, as in you're first illustration). to see the field lines just put a piece of paper over it with iron filings. You will find that the field lines are still divergence-less ( Del 'dot' B = 0). nice try though :-) >So, do theosophists know about this? I couldn't find anything >about it in >the literature. you will find most Theosophists scientifically naive (my experience only). However, there are some scientists around in the theosophy circles. I'd strongly encourage you to continue with your work. The key to success in science is reproducibility. Scientists use a wastebasket alot. I spend alot of my own personal time working in the Physics realms, mostly General Relativity and Unified Field Theory. I am a member of APS (www.aps.org), and AAAS (www.aaas.org), and spend alot of my free time working in Mathematical Physics. My day job is a DBA at an Internet company. feel free to write, but be patient&persistent for a response.... my life is really event-driven :-) peace - john e. m. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 13:13:50 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Internet in India At 10:41 AM 09/06/1999 +0200, you wrote: MKR wrote: [For example, in the US, TS tried to set up a maillist which is almost dead or is on life support. Why? Because the organization wants to censor all messages and censoring is not considered acceptable by most on Internet. Take another example. While we have several elected national officers/officials, only the e-mail address of the president(general secretary) and secretary who live at the national hq are published. While some of the other elected officers do have e-mail, none of them is published. Why? Is it because of the desire of the HQ to control the flow of info between the membership and elected officials or is it because as a policy TS does not want the directors/officers directly communicating with the membership? We do not know? Also TS has not used e-mail to keep in touch with its membership? Why? Do we need to go Tibet and ask our Real Founders (if we can locate Them) to find out.] You are right, this does not sound right. The most positive way to explain it is that they just do not know how democratic the internet of neccessity is. They are not tuned into the spirit of the Net. Let Us Pray They Will One Day Know Better. ;-) Katinka [Hope some light will shine and help TS use internet/e-mail effectively.] Amen. MKR: I hope so. Let us all pray it is soon before it is too late. I have brought some of these to those at the top. Still waiting for the "miracle" to happen. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:52:32 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Internet in India > You are right, this does not sound right. The most positive > way to explain it is that they just do not know how > democratic the internet of neccessity is. They are not > tuned into the spirit of the Net. Let Us Pray They Will One > Day Know Better. ;-) > MKR: > I hope so. Let us all pray it is soon before it is too late. > I have brought some of these to those at the top. > Still waiting for the "miracle" to happen. My own belief is that ... the "Hierarchy" (as it is called in the literature by HPB and the KH and Morya of the Mahatma Letters) does not in any way shape or form operate like a democracy - in fact doesn't even pretend or aspire to. It is presented as a strict order in which those at the bottom voluntarily bow to those above them - in fact it would be considered the height of arrogance for a Chela to demand access to the Adepts, or to have any say at all in the governing of the service it organizes ... its a sort of benevolent dictatorship. I think the problem, from the beginning of the TS, has been that its leaderships have attempted to replicate that model of governance - only problem is that the society of Adepts, and its governing model - only works when those at the top *are* at the top because of their spiritual achievements ... because of their mastery of the human chain of evolution, the immensity and development of their power, their love, or their knowledge (depending upon the ray). The purity of their motives, the clarity of their intent, the wisdom with which they serve can be relied upon. Personality-level motives do not even exist ... or rather, if they do exist in that small portion of the Adept soul present in an incarnating entity, they certainly aren't accorded any weight in decision making. What has destroyed the TS however (and it *IS* dead as an organization ... despite the continuing empty deliberations and "service" of the current governing clique, and its ever shrinking circle of followers) is the use of such a governing model by folks without enough spiritual watts to even fully see themselves, let alone brighten the path for humanity. In short, they ACT as though *THEY ARE THE HIERARCHY*. Doss, you wonder why they make themselves inaccessible? You wait with hope for them to be more open, for them to understand the opportunities the Internet delivers? They *NEVER WILL*, because their intention never *has* been to run an open and democratic society. They don't believe they *have* to. They don't *CARE* if membership shrinks to almost nothing, there is a trust fund that will let *THEM* do whatever they want, even if there are but a couple hundred members left. They don't think they *SHOULD* have to answer the "masses", be it the membership, or the general society in which they live. They believe they are *BEYOND* us, and it. But they came to power not through the depth of their souls but through either family connections, or by being "selected" by others in power, or through downright almost illegal, unethical, or at the very least utterly *NASTY* tactics. They stay in power, not through the acquiesence of genuine chelas and initiates, who know enough to understand how lofty a peak they've reached, but instead through the marginalization of anyone who disagrees with them, and the total control they exert over both all TS publications and all TS funds. The terrible fact is that the current TS, inaccessible in an age when you can email even the governer of most states; miniscule in numbers in an age where growing numbers of people are clamoring for exactly the sort of knowledge the TS literature holds; dictatorial in an age where dictators all over the world are being dethroned ... this current TS is not the result of horrible failures, but is, in fact the presice image of what - to those in the leadership - is *SUCCESS*. They have achieved utter isolation, and hence total control. And in doing so have finally killed the Society begun by a woman who didn't give a fig for trust funds, at the behest of Adepts who - sadly - predicted with terrible accuracy that this would be the likely end. That grand experiment, begun over a century ago, has demonstrated two significant things: 1. That there are a few people in the western world that *are* worth attention, that are capable of grasping enough of the sublimity of their thought to qualify at least for the title of servent, perhaps even Chela; and 2. That as a *whole* western culture is no where close to being ready to host an *organization* based on those principles, capable of generating a light that shines beyond its own small concerns. Mr. "President", "Directors", you who control the "Trust" (what a curiously metaphorical word!!!) - clear the cobwebs, and look *CLEARLY* at what you have wrought. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 00:33:14 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Nasty (!) tactics JRC wrote re the TS: > But they came to power not through the depth of their souls but through > either family connections, or by being "selected" by others in power, or > through downright almost illegal, unethical, or at the very least > utterly *NASTY* tactics. ..... which were used against me in England, and over the *decades* against many others. > > They stay in power, not through the acquiesence of genuine chelas and > initiates, who know enough to understand how lofty a peak they've reached, > but instead through the marginalization of anyone who disagrees with them, > and the total control they exert over both all TS publications and all TS > funds. ..... marginalized, and psycholologically abused by a deliberate series of *known-to-be LIES*. The fact that in the process the local lodge lost 20-25% of its nominal (more if you count active) membership was, as you made clear in your full posting, of little consequence to them. > > Mr. "President", "Directors", you who control the "Trust" (what a curiously > metaphorical word!!!) - clear the cobwebs, and look *CLEARLY* at what you > have wrought. -JRC > ..... and see the pretty little pink flying pigs! Alan :-( Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:21:48 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar > My own belief is that ... the "Hierarchy" (as it is called in the literature > by HPB and the KH and Morya of the Mahatma Letters) does not in any way > shape or form operate like a democracy - in fact doesn't even pretend or > aspire to. It is presented as a strict order in which those at the bottom > voluntarily bow to those above them - in fact it would be considered the > height of arrogance for a Chela to demand access to the Adepts, or to have > any say at all in the governing of the service it organizes ... its a sort > of benevolent dictatorship. Well, HPB says somewhere that a yogi never does anything unless some other yogi has allready had that thought. So it takes two yogis who think something should be done, for action to be taken. Also: Judge says in relation to the formation of the ES that it is sometimes the duty of a *younger student* (in this case himself) to point out to an older one what needs to be done. So if there isn't democracy in the sense of voting (which is only neccessary when there are to many people to reach concensus) in the Occult Brotherhoood, there is the spirit of democracy at least in some ways. Also the *orders* from above are prominent in the literature, but it is also clear from the same literature that for us normal folks, even up to some *masters* personal initiative is asked for, is neccessary, is in fact the only way to help humanity and develop the neccessary judgement through the personal intuition. So if the hierarchical nature has been stressed, I think it is only because the end of the last century was such an emergency, HPB being the best available, not the best thinkable. She needed a lot of guidance and orders to be kept in shape. > > I think the problem, from the beginning of the TS, has been that its > leaderships have attempted to replicate that model of governance - only > problem is that the society of Adepts, and its governing model - only works > when those at the top *are* at the top because of their spiritual > achievements ... because of their mastery of the human chain of evolution, > the immensity and development of their power, their love, or their knowledge > (depending upon the ray). The purity of their motives, the clarity of their > intent, the wisdom with which they serve can be relied upon. > Personality-level motives do not even exist ... or rather, if they do exist > in that small portion of the Adept soul present in an incarnating entity, > they certainly aren't accorded any weight in decision making. I agree, that is exactly why we normal people need democracy, even in the ES. > What has destroyed the TS however (and it *IS* dead as an organization ... > despite the continuing empty deliberations and "service" of the current > governing clique, and its ever shrinking circle of followers) is the use of > such a governing model by folks without enough spiritual watts to even fully > see themselves, let alone brighten the path for humanity. Well, isn't that a bit pessimistic? Katinka (again, the eternal optimist ;-) ) NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:04:13 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar >Well, isn't that a bit pessimistic? > >Katinka (again, the eternal optimist ;-) ) I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic. Both are emotional orientations that (IMO) blur vision. While it may perhaps be good to be optimistic about one's *personal* life (it can, I suppose, help one see opportunities that one might otherwise miss), when it comes to analyzing the reality outside of one's own personal sphere, it becomes dangerous. If it was a few years after the invention of the automobile, and you insisted upon being optimistic about your stock in a wagon wheel company, your optimism wouldn't have the foggiest effect on the fact that the company had become obselete, and within a number of years would disappear altogether. About the Adyar/Wheaton TS, both the personal experience of myself and a number of people I know who have been subjected to blacklisting, and the blatant use of membership money (including dues we ourselves paid) to marginalize and *lie* about - as well as objective evidence (dropping membership numbers all over, the actual removal of National Charters, by Adyar, of at least three *countries*) as well as other behaviours and statistics too numerous to mention all indicate an organization that is now entirely form-side. The life-side is dead. Optimism and pessimism are meaningless ... many organizations calcify, fold, dissolve, and disappear. And in them there are people that are optimistic right up to the moment legal dissolution is declared. But it alters nothing. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:21:45 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar JRC wrote: > About the Adyar/Wheaton TS, both the personal experience of myself and a > number of people I know who have been subjected to blacklisting, and the > blatant use of membership money (including dues we ourselves paid) to > marginalize and *lie* about - as well as objective evidence (dropping > membership numbers all over, the actual removal of National Charters, by > Adyar, of at least three *countries*) as well as other behaviours and > statistics too numerous to mention all indicate an organization that is now > entirely form-side. The life-side is dead. Optimism and pessimism are > meaningless ... many organizations calcify, fold, dissolve, and disappear. > And in them there are people that are optimistic right up to the moment > legal dissolution is declared. But it alters nothing. Personally I think that what the Mahatma's wrote, still applies: if there are three members worthy of Their attention, the TS is worth saving. Now what you write above indicates that the TS-leaders in majority are not among those three, but that is not the same as saying that there aren't three (or even more). It is clear that I cannot know if there are such members in Their opinion, but since there are a lot more than three members that I can personaly relate to, I feel I have reason to be optimistic. And if the TS is going to be a corpse, perhaps our efforts will make it at least a "suggestive corpse" as HPB said about her Egyptian miricle club. I am not going to waste my energy on being overly negative, as long as there is fruitfull (in my experience) work I can do in the TS. If I was listening only to the negative opinions about the TS on this list and not to my own experience, I might be tempted to stop working and that is certainly not something I am hoping to do. Even in the most negative scenario the TS may change and it is only going to do that if the people who know what's wrong stay in the TS and work there, in harmony with those they disagree with. After all, we may be wrong. Difference of opinion is not enough reason to quite for me. And yes, of course I might be wrong in my optimism, but since I personally have had a lot of good from the TS, I feel that there is reason for optimism. This is not meant as criticism of anyone on this list. The choice to stay or come into the TS is obviously up to each individual. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:18:38 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar ----- Original Message ----- > Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar > From: hesse600 > Date: Thursday, September 09, 1999 8:21 AM Dear Katinka (who wrote): > > If I was listening only to the negative opinions about the > TS on this list and not to my own experience, I might be > tempted to stop working and that is certainly not something > I am hoping to do. I could not agree more. Those of us who regard the TS in an often very negative light do not stop working either. We just do it in another way! > > Even in the most negative scenario the TS may change and it > is only going to do that if the people who know what's > wrong stay in the TS and work there, in harmony with those > they disagree with. After all, we may be wrong. Difference > of opinion is not enough reason to quite for me. > The problem, Katinka, is that there are so many of us who have tried to do just this. We were forced OUT of the TS *by* the TS. Sad but true. Alan :-( Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:02:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Existence of the master adepts Sept 6th 1999 Dear Art: As to the actual existence past and present existence of the Mahatmas -- it is not a matter of whether your "belief" (or that of others) is valid. It is a matter of historical report. Either a mass of people were quite deluded, or their number amounts in your esteem to nothing. Either the logic and system that the Mahatmas have advanced as part of the history of our Earth and its evolution are dreams, or facts. If you have studied the SECRET DOCTRINE and can show that it is erroneous, then we will have some basis for respecting your opinion. But you say that you are a new-comer to Theosophy and are seeking to understand it. If you start doubting it, and without adequate study, then, where will that get you? Fortunately Theosophy does not at all depend on the personality of HPB (who is an historical personage, highly respected by hundreds of philosophers and scientists, as well as ordinary persons, like you and me). Nor does it depend on the existence of the Mahatmas -- although it is quite logical I think to envisage the possibility of developing a far wiser view of our life and the future of our world than it is at present -- and there may be some who have achieved that potential and eminence. We ought to give them the benefit of potential existence, in all good reason, I think. You are quite welcome to your opinion. But at the moment, from what you write, and your self-proclaimed novelty to Theosophy and its literature, it seems to me that your opinion is premature, if not quite prejudiced. Why this should be so, I must leave it to you to decide on. You are the one who will have to live with it. But I would interject, for you to consider, that there is an element of rashness in it, since you have not yet well investigated the evidence. How much have you read or studied of Theosophy and for how long? What would you compare it with? Do you have details of your study that you could summarize for us to also consider -- in an attempt to follow the basis for your conclusions (opinions).? If you are willing to do that, and later, when you have all the necessary facts in your presence you still say that the concept if not the actuality of the Mahatmas is questionable, no doubt you will by then have more than your own "belief" or "faith" to advance as evidence for us to review. In the meantime I would advise scholarly caution. May I indicate a parallel. Let us assume that you are quite uneducated -- have just graduated from 7th grade and stopped your education there. You hear of University study and of the educational level that is graced or proclaimed and named: "Ph.D." Are you going to be skeptical about such a degree? Suppose that in your life you have never met such a person, or even if you have, you never knew of his or her degree. Would you go about denying that there were "Ph.D. s" ? And supposing that someone comes to you and says: "I am a Ph.D." Are you going to demand his academic record before you believe he is what he proclaims? Or, do you require that a parade of PH.D's appear ? If you think that for us students, it is necessary to have a parade of "Masters," HPB, or Mahatmas to appear physically before we "believe," then I think you are mistaken. I for one am quite satisfied that the logic of their propositions and doctrines makes sense (to me). And on this basis I have continued my study, and now offer what I have gathered to those who are interested. Does that make it wrong ? Or is it only a tentative gift of what I and others think may be valuable to some -- to you, if you wish, and to others on the same basis. Let's be reasonable. If you expect respect, then you have to reciprocate -- that is quite acceptable. The work of good students all over the world is that of comparison. No one is demanding to be accepted as an "authority." In such matters there are none. We are all students of Nature and her laws and ways. After all, consider that we live entirely in NATURE. and we are forever subject to her ways and laws. It seems obvious to me that it is of benefit to us all if we study those closely. And to further ensure our friendly associations, we exchange our views with others to have them either supported or "shot down.": First study Theosophy. Then you can ask questions. Reserve your opinions for the time when you have developed them and have some basis of proof yourself. What evidence have you to offer that is sound and verifiable by others, who can review your work? You advance the names of currently living persons who have acquired (in your esteem) eminence in the philosophical field. Have you studied them philosophy so as to be able to say accurately if their erudition is useful and valid? Or, in general, have you have made a study of philosophy so as to be able to accurately assert that you have some basis for giving them a status ? And refusing any to the Mahatmas and to HPB ? Or (with due respect to your right to speak) is it all hear-say and personal opinion? Do you really expect those who read what you write, to believe you? Why should they ? If you do not, in your own writing, exhibit adequate scholarship and research, then, is it not just one more opinion? Who profits? I therefore, with all respect to your self-proclaimed status as a beginner, say to you -- find out, then offer your opinions. Perhaps Pythagoras was very wise when he required of his students a period of a preliminary 7 years of silence and listening (acousticoi) before graduating to the next stage, which permitted questions to be asked. That is what I, and many hundreds if not thousands of students of Theosophy have done for many years of investigation into the doctrines that were offered by those Mahatmas through HPB. But of course that means only something to us, and may not to you, yet. What I mean is that your personal skepticism is for the moment, unjustified in my eyes for the reasons that you yourself give. Best wishes, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of The Clan > Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 3:28 AM > Subject: Theos-World Existence of the master adepts I would have to say that the masters who are attributed with the foundation of the TS are in the category of belief and are not verifiable personages .. they are rather flights of fancy and wishful thinking. HPB wrote: >Let rather the planetary chains and other super- and sub-cosmic mysteries >remain a dreamland for those who can neither see, nor yet believe that >others can. ..." -- Secret Doctrine Vol I page 167. By Helena Blavatsky, >1888. This put simply is the heart of the matter... there is no objective proof of such beings... we are in the category here of those who witnessed the golden plates of the Book of Mormon. This is the category of fantasy and dreamland... Do I disbelieve... yes I do! Most emphatically so! When we dwell on these shadow beings ..these willowthewisps, we devote time and energy that could be used to study and appreciate genuine masters such as Swedenborg, Sri Aurobindo, Krishnamurti, Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, and many others, who are verifiable beings with historical reality who have given the people of the world so much spiritual guidance that the product of these socalled masters in the early years of TS are better left forgotten! - Art Gregory lgregory@discover.net -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:03:36 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theosophy as a whole -- Consider its scope and intent Sept 7th Dallas observes: It is interesting to read the exchange of various opinions concerning the value of Theosophy (whether current or 100 or 1,000,000, 100,000,000 etc. years ago ...) It does not limit us to this life span, nor does it try to tie us to any -ism or set of observances of any kind. Theosophy directs the mind to consider the existence and the fact of its freedom. It is a freedom that depends on the One Consciousness which each Individual has and which makes up his INDIVIDUALITY. It is this Individuality which is the "Eternal Pilgrim." It is our present "Personality" which is the pupil, and the "Experiencer," and the "learner." One thing that shines out is the fact that looking at the past, we deal with history. It is the history of the recording of principles and ideals. I do not see that there is any change in fundamental philosophical values when one refers to the moral and ethical life described by ancient systems, when these are compared with Theosophy. Modern Theosophy is designed to assemble as many of those as possible and throw the light of spiritual wisdom on them. This is what makes Theosophy universal in scope. The methods of used in older systems explanation differ from person to person, authority to authority, and always there emerges some factors that are common. Perhaps our ability to recognize those leads to a perception of, not only truth generally -- as an expression of facts in Nature -- but also that there is something that we all share in them. Theosophy draws constant attention to the fundamental principles of living Nature and of the opportunities that our lives offer us. THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE says in one place: "Look inward, thou art Buddha." The Monad which is our Selves, is our CORE, is the Eternal Pilgrim, is ATMA-BUDDHI. We (as points of consciousness) are, at present, mainly living, working, thinking on the plane/level of Kama-Manas -- the embodied mind that is broadly and almost entirely linked to and with the "principles" named "DESIRES AND PASSIONS," or the "Personality" -- the "mask." It is this that is you and me and all of us here and now -- we are all "masks" of the Divine Being -- of the potential "Buddha" in us. Yet withal, this concern with the "externalities of our lives," and that which we value as currently important, we sense that there is a deeper and more consistent SELF in our natures that does not live "for the moment" but, rather, for the ETERNAL. --- From THAT comes our sense of immortality. Instinctively, the Personality recognizes this, occasionally as flashes of intuitive light. It is the REAL SELF, (the Monad) that is the IMMORTAL in us. Literature (new or old) that offers us insight into the nature of our Universe, into the functionings of NATURE, is of many kinds, and is apparently framed by those who are able to Teach in a way that is/was suitable for the minds and hearts of peoples at various stages of their progress in space and time, both in the past and present. Theosophy does not insist on any of these as being superior to the rest, but explains how the same fundamental ideas are to be seen present in all. It eschews all authority, ritualism and dogmatism. It points to principles, It points incessantly to the free-will in every human being. Like Krishna, at the end of the Bhagavad Giuta, it says : "Here is information that you can use, act as seems best to you." We are reincarnating beings. So on return to each life we meet with what remains of early systems of our earlier instruction, We look back at the principles, ideals and concepts offered by a great parade, a succession of wise individuals: Boehme, Paracelsus, Pico, Plotinus, Iamblichus, Hypatia, Ammonius Saccus, Pythagoras, Plato, Jesus, Krishna, Odin, Gautama Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Manco Capac, Hiawatha, Tirthankara, Zarathustra, Kwan Shi Yin, and all the Prophets, Mages, Sages, Rishis and Mahatmas of antiquity. The literature of modern Theosophy stands in line with all of these and in this age of rapid information it serves to unite thinking humanity into a united consideration of the great ideas that have ruled all the various philosophies and religions of the past. It looks to, and identifies, ideals and suggests that each one does the same for themselves, using it as a tool as a method of ascertaining what and where those items that are really useful are. In the literature of more modern Theosophy we find that these various systems are brought together so that they can be grasped, correlated, and used. It does not place them dried and desiccated on display in a museum. The "Living Power of Theosophy" lies in its availability, its discussion, its possible applications on an individual basis. It does not offer a series of rites or rituals but rather it speaks of points which an intelligent and independent mind, that is desirous of growing in itself, as well as assisting humanity, can mull over, meditate on, analyze for accuracy and reasonableness, and then, as a culminating act of free-willed decision, decide to use or reject. As I see it, the advantage that a study of Theosophy offers is not to drive us into shallow and dry thought, not into any special compartmentalized system of study or meditation, but rather to free the mind and give it unlimited horizons to look at and value. It therefore points to universals, and ideals, and to those ethics that truly unite humanity in an understanding of the "Family of Man." We are given the past as a whole, and shown how it may be correlated in terms of essential truths that ought to be grasped and currently applied when we are assured of their accuracy, harmlessness, and benefit to all. Hence the primary concept of a universal Brotherhood of humanity and of all Nature is offered. This, BROTHERHOOD, is a rallying point. A living Key Ideal. It is a uniting, and not the dispersal of individuals into units, but the drawing together of those who desire to exchange their experiences and see if there are common bonds of sympathy that will reinforce as ideal, a noble and altruistic concept of life and living. Theosophy does not invite the dry and fruitless study of history alone, but shows how a living thread links the past of humanity at its best, with the future that we are all so industriously trying to frame, each for themselves, using the best methods, and ethics we can devise. Instead of trying to force its devotees to unify under some one teacher, or any single method, it speaks of the UNIVERSAL TEACHINGS of all the Wise, ancient and modern. It identifies to us the QUALITIES of truth, as its universality and versatility with which it can be used in the independent, thinking man's life. In all humility we can declare that we owe our present opportunity to the sacrifice of H.P.Blavatsky and to the Mahatmas, her Masters, who stand behind her and desired that this information be made available. It is only reasonable to suggest that as we are all reincarnating beings, neither HPB, nor the Masters are "dead and gone." They are very much alive, and are constantly with us on the invisible planes of spiritual nature, those planes which are represented by our Monad within. Rites, ritualism, mediation painting, drawing, dance, etc ... these are all "externalities." What is there of "soul Wisdom" in them? Distractions, deviations on the Path to the Self. That is not what living Theosophy is concerned with. Theosophy is concerned with the INDIVIDUALITY, with the life of the Never-Dying-SOUL. That is the eternal Monad (the Atma-Buddi-Manas) or our own inner self -- consisting of Spirit, Wisdom and Mind. And it speaks of this Monad as that which is progressing, ever progressing from life to life -- our present "Personal" being is only a way-station into the future that we are creating all the time. So theosophy will be found by those who are astute and attentive, to be not only a review of the past that has continued value for us, but of our present as a devotee aiming at self-improvement. But it is not a selfish limitation but rather an generous and wide compassion that is encouraged at all times. I hope some of these ideas will be of help. Dallas dalval@nwc.net -----Original Message----- > From: owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com > [mailto:owner-theos-talk@pippin.imagiware.com]On Behalf Of M K Ramadoss > Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 2:24 PM > Subject: RE: Theos-World Meetings, encounters At 12:55 AM 09/05/1999 -0700, The Clan wrote: >The deeper question I have is what direction the TSA should take in the >future... and what I gather from the past responses in the past week or so, >is a TSA that may be without HPB and the body of Theosophic literature that >has grown around her writings... One that is still sensible to the central >issue of the Ancient Wisdom found in a variety of religions and ancient >documents, but sans the Masters and HPB...except as a nodding historical >note... > >But the thrust of the organization would be vegetarian, non-violent, and >experimenting with new social forms to present an alternative to the >current mass society, an experiment that would foster deeper study of the >Ancient Wisdom as well as a nonviolent and more cooperative, and ecological >model of society. > >- Art Gregory Art: You have rightly pointed out what can be done here and now so that theosophy and TS will have a bright future. We do not need to throw the baby with the bath water. Nor do we want to replace SD to replace the Bible or some other scripture and want blind followers (of course in the in the interest of political leaders that a group of sheep is easy to manage than 10 independent thinkers whose responses to any situation would be most unpredictable. Once we recognize the fundamental truths, it is very easy to see them in every religion even though cloaked in allegory and symbol. So a judicious mixture of topics can be tied together by theosophy. Ultimately it is the challenging of the eager and enthusiastic student that is going to bring a great future. While we are all trying to do this, one has to be careful to avoid followers of other sects or cults from taking over the use of the assets of the branch. mkr -- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: Theos-World Re: Blind leading the blind Sept 7th Dallas offers a modification: Allow me to say that I only suggest that HPB's writings be used as fully as possible. In no way would I suggest that other writings not be considered. The essence of Theosophy is the ability to recognize truth wherever it may be. I would also observe that whatever path one elects to follow, or adopt ought to be done with one's eye fully open. In regard to working or studying under some chosen "Guru," I find the following suggestion is offered: "...at any time, any one its (the Lodge, which contains within its boundaries all real Masters, students, guides, and Gurus, of whatever race or creed) real teachers or disciples will gladly help any other teacher or disciple. But we are not to conclude that...we, who call ourselves chela-aspirants or known chelas of any certain person whom we call Guru, can place ourselves at the same moment under the direct tutelage of more than one Guru.." W. Q. Judge, LETTERS THAT HAVE HELPED ME, Letter XIII, p. 43 (ULT Edition). One finds that this relationship between chela and Guru is further described as follows: "...from earliest times, among all but modern western people, the teacher was given great reverence by the pupil...It was among these people a great sin, a thing that did one actual harm in his moral being, to be disrespectful to his teacher even in thought. The reason for this lay ...in the fact that a long chain of influence extends from the highest spiritual guide who may belong to any man, down through vast numbers of spiritual chiefs, ending at last in the mere teacher of our youth. Or, to restate it in modern reversion of thought, a chain extends up from our teacher or preceptor to the highest chief in whose ray or descending line one may happen to be. And it makes no difference whatever, in this occult relation, that neither pupil nor final guide may be aware, or admit, that this is the case...The Guru is the guide or readjuster, and may not always combine the function of teacher with it." [ Ibid, pp. 42-3. For correlation see SD I 638-9, 571-3 ] On this subject one may find further advice: "Fix your thoughts again on Those Elder Brothers, work for Them, serve Them, and They will help through the right appropriate means an no other. To meditate on the Higher Self is difficult. Seek, then, the bridge--the Masters...Keep up your courage, faith and charity. Those who can to any extent assimilate the Master, to that extent they are the representatives of the Master, and have the help of the Lodge in its work..." [ Ibid. pp 112-3 ] It is fairly true that instructions on meditation are not easily found in Theosophical literature -- I mean as to place, posture, procedures, etc. For instance in the 6th Chapter (pp. 46-7) of the Bhagavad Gita, we find Krishna speaking to Arjuna about this process and there he makes recommendations so that the process of introspection will be the least disturbed by outward influences. Meditation is a thought and an aspiration toward apprehending the truth and the principles of any chosen subject. Patanjali also describes this. I am placing some notes in CAPS below Dal -----Original Message----- > On Behalf Of Richtay@aol.com > Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 1:42 PM > Subject: : Blind leading the blind In a message dated 9/5/99 6:44:19 PM, caduceus@dial.pipex.com writes: PETER << And now we have some more sweeping generalisation with which to paint students of HPB's works. The recent one in this group has been that we are all stuck in the past, followed by the 'implied' criticism from you that we are all suffering from arrested development from the time HPB's guidance ceased. And the last one is that we are all copping out because we have the temerity to believe that we might not become full blown Adepts in this life. Oh dear!>> RICH My position, I believe, is entirely grounded in the works of HPB, and unlike Art, I have no doubts as to the centrality and continuing presence of HPB and her Masters in our work. If my "sweeping generalizations" don't apply in individual cases, of course one must ignore them. But after more than a decade in "organized" Theosophical work, I feel the ability to make certain generalizations, yes. As a response to Peter's comments (which at some points greatly exaggerate and make boffo my position) I will only say this: there is NO EXCUSE for not taking advantage of spiritual opportunities available in the present. Dallas (with whom I do not disagree habitually nor on a whim, contra your ad hominem) would have us study NOTHING but HPB and the Masters until we have sucked every bit of marrow from the bones of their writings. That is his path, and I present no obstacles to it. DALLAS: NO -- AS ABOVE -- HPB AND OTHER SACRED WRITINGS OUGHT TO BE STUDIED. The Theosophical Movement has 3 objects, and ancient Literature and the investigation of the invisible side of nature and man are not to be neglected. WHAT I AM TRYING TO EMPHASIZE IS we ought to take full advantage of what HPB teaches, not select those items that we like or which attract our attention, but the whole spectrum of her teaching. It offers points of approach, points of understanding, and points of danger. It also leaves it up to us to select our own "Path." ================================== RICH The more obvious path, it seems to me -- based on the very model of HPB's teachings and life -- is to study printed works and live the ethical life UNDER THE GUIDANCE of a qualified teacher(s). HPB did this, and her Teachers indicated They did this. We must assume that the trend continues up to the ever-living-human-Banyan tree Watcher himself. DALLAS: THIS PATH OF RESPONSIBILITY SOMETIMES CALLED THE GURUPARAMPARA CHAIN IS TO BE FOUND DESCRIBED IN EXTENSO IN THE S D: See SD I 638-9 and 571-3 for this "line" as she traces it RICH As an additional stimulus to seeking out guidance, it should be noted that no where in Theosophical teachings are there any EXPLICIT instructions as to EXACTLY **HOW** TO MEDITATE. I've spoken to a great number of Theosophists regarding this, mostly in ULT, and it is agreed -- we as a group have but a few loose ideas on how to meditate, what posture should be used, how to focus the mind (even though we are enjoined to meditate a half hour or more every day!). And we have but a few meditation books (in rough translation) such as Patanjali's YOGA APHORISMS -- but not a single qualified teacher of that book. No one I'm aware of would claim to have mastered that yogic tradition -- after 100 hundred years of practice. Theosophy in the current century has produced NOT A SINGLE ADEPT (that we are aware of). Are we to just hang on, hoping that after enough grasping in the dark, light will suddenly flash out from above? ======================== DALLAS: MEDITATION - ADEPT PRODUCTION Quite true that instructions on meditation are scattered and need to be collected. But there are some and they do not start only with physical postures and procedures of a ritualistic nature--of which there are many adopted in various schools. I venture to offer a few observations culled from my own thoughts on this subject, and a consideration over quite a few years, of what Theosophy seems to say to us on this subject. In Theosophy, the information concerns itself with the essence of Meditation which is a mental discipline and not a passive but a very active one. One has to know very well what are the 7 principles and determine what the One Consciousness is, its Source and Power. The process begins with assuming the mental position that we are 1st. the Monad: Atma-Buddhi-Manas 2nd. that the One Consciousness is the power of the Spirit, the Atmic-"ray" in us. It pierces up and down the 7 planes of being and unites the memories of Its experiences on ea ch plane. The main subject for consideration is the fact that the Lower self (Kama) has trapped and wrapped Manas in the coils of desire and emotion. The prime object is then to perceive this clearly, to isolate and discipline the Lower self. The coils of Kama are to be identified and stripped, so that the Higher Mind and its linkage with Buddhi may be made active. The objective of meditation is then to make our aspirations and ideals the living and constant power in our lives. These are derived from Atma-Buddhi. This brings about the transformation of the embodied self if this process is successful. It is self-administered. The assistance that anyone may receive from a "Guru" is that of primary instruction in the complex nature of the human being and the assembled powers in his nature as he presently is. This is the building of the Adept by the chela in himself. In FIVE YEARS OF THEOSOPHY the 1st article TEH ELIXIR OF LIFE describes in part this process, as it also transforms all of the "lower principles." If anyone should achieve a completion of the process there are no external signs and no publishing of success. Humility and silence surround the whole of the process in any case from one end to the other. I would not recommend going out on a limb so far as to say that no Adepts have emerged in the century since the death of HPB's last physical form. WE are not party to the processes of the inner transformations of disciples. We simply do not know all that may or may not have been produced this century or even now. ============================== RICH Yet we have before us eminently qualified teachers from many traditions now in the West, present largely (I believe) because of the very work of HPB and co. which opened the doors to them. Buddhism, for example, was called by the Master the exoteric religion closest to the Wisdom tradition; "coincidentally" it is the tradition with THE GREATEST FOCUS on meditation. Tibetan Buddhism in particular has perfected dozens of meditative techniques for dealing with anger, greed, lust, attachment, fear, etc. etc. etc. I feel it is foolish in the extreme to pass up this opportunity——the very fruits of Theosophical labor. And it may not last forever. ============================= DALLAS: I WOULD SAY: This may or may not be true. But no disciple is ever (AT THE BEGINNING) able to totally grasp the nature or the elevation of a selected Guru, except by the process of minutely examining his life and work and methods. If they are in accord with the "Good Law," then there may be something "There." In any case since we are all united to the Atmic Ray within. We all have in seed-form the same potentials as the greatest of Adepts is able to manifest. There is always the potential of our transforming ourselves IF WE WILL IT. No outside discipline will do it for us, so rituals and postures and mantras do not help. We have to identify and select those that are suitable for ourselves. They are all mental attitudes and procedures. RICH: We can read about "Eastern wisdom," or study with Eastern teachers. We can read about yoga, or practice it under Satya Sai Baba (or others). We can read about meditation, or sit at the feet of Namkhai Norbu (or others). We can read about preparing for death, or study with Sogyal Rinpoche and the Rigpa Foundation (or others). I cast absolutely NO ASPERSIONS on the works of HPB or her teachers. Indeed, as Dallas points out, it is only because of that guidance that I turned from gross philosophical materialism in adolescence and learned what true devotion, true altruism, and true wisdom is. But now, seeing those attributes personified in living teachers, I should confine myself to written works from our physically DEAD teacher? As Dallas correctly observes (see, I've agreed with him twice in successive paragraphs !!!) caution is certainly advised. There are many, many so-called teachers who would like our money, our allegiance, or even our souls. So, through the LENS and GUIDE of the ORIGINAL theosophical teachers, we must guide our own development. For those who do not want to pursue Adeptship directly, who do not want broader horizons, who do not want the guidance of living Masters, by all means, limit oneself to study groups where the blind lead the blind. But be warned -- in HPB's writings she said that the "sluggards" who had not advanced to a certain point by Dec. 31st, 1899, "will have to renounce every chance of advancement in their present incarnation -- until the year 1975." Whatever could she have meant by that? ================================== DALLAS OFFERS: It has been indicated, by Judge, and others, that the dates that HPB mentioned do not represent a void in spiritual development or the impossibility of starting one's transformation.. It would be frustrating to all aspirants if NOTHING could be done at present in this cycle. That is not credible. Who or what brings on a change in the cycles> Who can take advantage of a "rising cycle?" Only those who are "awake" to its potentials. The study of Theosophy makes aware of those. HPB is our Guru, the Guru to all of us. So our responsibility, in my eyes, demand that we recognize in gratitude all that we are now, we owe to her sacrifice and instructions. Further I would again state solemnly and with whatever force that I can muster of my own conviction: -- the MASTERS stood behind HER. And none of them are DEAD AND GONE. If our confidence in the philosophy we have learned something of, and of ourselves, is lagging, how can we hope the be able to succeed in meditation? And that situation is only remediable by our own efforts to recognize it and alter it for the better. Any truly spiritual work is entirely inner and invisible to others. The present cycle makes little difference to the truly eternal Being that we are internally. If it happens to be a "down-cycle" the work is a little harder. But the opportunity is unlimited. Today we may "achieve," or "after many days." It is the effort that counts, and especially the efforts that are expended on others for their benefit and progress. Life is a giving, and not just a taking in Theosophy. DATES ? WHERE ARE THE EXTRACTED FROM ? In regard to those dates, what are the articles in which they were first proclaimed? What is the context in which they are given? If that is known, then there is some hope of being able to interpret them more accurately, and give them a value. Without that information the they appear as blockers, as barriers. Is this truly so? Since we are ETERNAL BEINGS -- Monads -- Atma-Buddhi-Manas in incarnation, our purpose is not Lower-self development alone, and in isolation from the rest of Nature. {see SD I 632-3 on the matter of the development of the immortal MONADS, of which we are one in the human stage.} It is for us, as living human minds, Minds who stand at the focus of both spiritual and material development, to leaven the material aspect of evolution and cause the sensitive nature of all living things to feel the touch of benevolence, charity and generosity motivated by a genuine concern for others--which we alone can generate and direct. This alone expresses that which true humanity (each one of us) has as a duty. It is for this reason that the idea of a UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD was launched as the prime object of the TS. This is the prime subject and object of all true meditation. =============================== RICH And gee, here is 1999, rapidly approaching Dec. 31st. Do you think the same cycle will obtain?) DALLAS: If it is a 100 year cycle, perhaps it is, but then why is it so difficult for us to look back over the last 125 years and determine where and how the Theosophical Movement has proceeded? Have we developed that intuitional perception so as to see where good work has sustained the Movement ? Can we determine where it still proceeds alive and well and in line with the "original objects" that were first established under Master's direction? What did HPB mean by the "original lines" and the "original methods." -- the establishment of which she says come from the Masters.? Many thanks, Rich, for permitting me to add some more - hope this is useful, Dal. ================================= Rich From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 10:22:16 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar Dear Alan, you wrote: > The problem, Katinka, is that there are so many of us who have tried to > do just this. We were forced OUT of the TS *by* the TS. Sad but true. Well, I have not been forced out yet. Katinka Hesselink NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:22:24 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar >> The problem, Katinka, is that there are so many of us who have tried to >> do just this. We were forced OUT of the TS *by* the TS. Sad but true. >Well, I have not been forced out yet. >Katinka Hesselink Perhaps this discussion has tended in the wrong direction. I hope you aren't getting the feeling anyone is saying you ought to do anything. There certainly are a few thousand members still in the American section, and hundreds in other sections. And that is just the Adyar organization. A good number of people belong without running into any difficulties at all - but there are all sorts of motives and expectations for being a member (of any organization) ... most folks in Theosophy simply wish to study topics that interest them, and pay little if any attention to the way the organization is run. Relatively few even bother to vote in elections, let alone spend the time and energy to examine the minutes of board meetings, or financial statements, or look at membership figures. And of those that do, few of *them* do anything other than take the "official" pronouncements of the leaderships at face value, or attempt to gain information from any channels other than the publications controlled, produced, and distributed by the leaderships. And no one is saying any Theosophist *ought* to. However, of those that *do* look very closely at things, and perhaps notice what they believe to be very disturbing activities ... activities ethically (and even legally) questionable, disagree with the intellectual and spiritual directions they perceive the leaderships to be taking Theosophy, worry about significant declines in membership and attitudes so out of step with the world they live in that the declines seem likely to continue, or anything else that, in short, is perceived as a threat by the leadership - well, these people are blacklisted, money, *MEMBERSHIP MONEY* is spent to discredit them, silence their voices, and shove them out of the Society, and in fact make sure the rest of the membership never hears their voices, nor even begins to ask the questions they are asking. Hearing these things may make you uncomfortable, and may cause a bit of defensiveness. But I ought to mention that the reason that a lot of discussion on TS Internet lists seems to you "pessimistic", and may seem to dwell unduly on unpleasent topics, is because the Internet is the *ONLY* avenue where any dissent is *permitted*, because it is the one avenue the official leaderships have absolutely no control over. However, they try, in their own way to discredit *IT* ... why do you suppose that in an era when organizations all over the world are overwhelmingly embracing the Internet as a fanatastic means of growing their ranks and communicating with their members, that not a single *elected official* of the TS Board has ever joined a discussion on this list (though we have it on good authority that they *read* it with great interest)? In other words, your comment, to me, seemed to suggest you were beginning to feel as though people were trying to get you to change your attitude towards the TS, or to operate differently than you've chosen to. Please - you don't need to defend yourself or your affiliations ... neither Alan or myself would ever even hint that *you* ought to act or think in any way other than the way your conscience suggests based on your perception of the TS. By the same token, however, please understand that others, *MANY* others, have had experiences with the TS quite different than yours, have witnessed tricks and actions by the elected leaderships so low and dirty that in other organizations they'd get people booted out of office in disgrace, and that regardless of the fact that many don't want to hear about these things, and will get defensive (and in some cases even attack) when they do, *I* perceive the TS to be *dying*, due to the attitudes and activities of its leaderships (both international and in some national sections). I can point to a whole number of variables and characteristics that are common to any organization on the verge of dissolution (a great deal of study has gone into the various stages of organizational lifecycles, and the TS is not "special" in any way - if we permit it to die, the "Masters" aren't gonna come out of the blue and save it ... in fact several of them - if you believe the Mahatma Letters - didn't think it had much of a chance in the first place). And because the internet is the only place *ANY* dissenting views can even be voiced (so much for freedom of thought) I *will* keep periodically stirring the soup. And frankly, the fact that speaking such things, raising dissenting opinions, voicing complaints, pointing at behaviours on the part of the leadership, at objective measures that show an organization in a dangerous decline, and at the connection between the two - the fact that this is considered everything from "pessimistic" to "evil" is itself a sign of the decline. *HEALTHY* organizations (indeed, even healthy governments) not only provide avenues and forums for their critics, but even see such dissenting voices as a principle means of *maintaining* their health. Their leaderships *understand* they will have to be accountable. Their members *understand* that while they may disagree with the critics and agree with the leadership at any particular moment, that it is *profoundly* important that no voices be silenced ... because at some time down the road they may *themselves* be the one disagreeing with a leadership, and they would not want *their* voices silenced. Lux et Veritas, -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 17:14:39 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar In a message dated 9/13/99 8:18:53 AM Central Daylight Time, jrc@texas.net writes: > *HEALTHY* organizations (indeed, even healthy governments) not only > provide avenues and forums for their critics, but even see such dissenting > voices as a principle means of *maintaining* their health. Their leaderships > *understand* they will have to be accountable. OOO, wow, yep, sounds like Microsoft and Bill Gates! Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 18:20:08 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar >> *HEALTHY* organizations (indeed, even healthy governments) not only >> provide avenues and forums for their critics, but even see such dissenting >> voices as a principle means of *maintaining* their health. Their >leaderships >> *understand* they will have to be accountable. >OOO, wow, yep, sounds like Microsoft and Bill Gates! Actually, while I suspect that comment was meant to be sarcastic, I have several friends that work for Microsoft (in fact was at a party with a few last week) - and while Gates is certainly a slave-driver, and definately does have some undesireable traits, he also hires extremely smart people, and their internal email system *is* wide open. To give credit where credit is due, he *does* understand that you don't hire Harvard MBA's and MIT Ph.D's, and then tell them to keep their opinions to themselves. Every MS employee I know feels as though they have a *personal* vested interest in the survival and growth of the company stock (especially because many of them own a good amount of it), feels free to express him or herself - *loudly* - if they think something is wrong, or a new avenue isn't being given attention. This is not to say that Gates simply immediately acts on every idea an employee has ... but he also doesn't boot people out the door who disagree with him - in fact he pays a good deal of money to buy very expensive talent, and he *expects* them to think for themselves. He surrounds himself with *critics*, not butt-kissers ... and that's one of the reasons he's survived and thrived in one of the most viscious and competative businesses on earth. 5 years ago Gates personally thought the internet was a *fad* that would appeal solely to geeks, but had limited, if any, commercial potential. He was *persuaded* by the arguments of several employees to commit significant resources to it - just as it was really starting to hit the big time. If you brought up Gates as an attempt to argue against my assertion, you wound up instead giving a case in point. Gates knows very little about marketing (he's really, at heart, just a big geek), and hasn't himself written a line of code in years. What he *is* capable of doing is surrounding himself with extremely intelligent, powerful people, filling them with the sense that when the company suceeds, *they* suceed, driving them beyond their own limits, creating a culture in which the brains and creativity he hires *AREN'T* penalized for disagreement. He spoke to a conference of web developers I attended this summer (not wealthy investors, mind you, but rather the people that *use* his development and web server software) . Gave his speech and opened the floor up to questions. He got *blasted* by several people. But I came away undertstanding why he was so successful. Leave aside the fact that the CEO of a multinational corporation, who is also the richest man on earth, certainly has no need to appear in front a group of developers - let alone open himself to facing intense and public criticism (hell, half the world's CEO's make no public appearances at all - and half of those that do only do so at the annual stockholder's meetings ...). A couple people leveled intense criticism about some of the security glitches in the Windows NT platform. Some of the issues he said were being resolved. One issue wound up with the person being rather humiliated (because he *didn't know what he was talking about* ... Gates has no tolerance for idiots). A couple of people, however, also made very obscure technical points, and suggestions about what they wanted, and after one of them (from a woman who started out with kind of a nasty attitude) Gates actually scribbled something down, and *thanked* her for the input. This man is willing to take fierce criticism, and is *perpetually* open to new and intelligent ideas from *any* source. Dig that? He *ignored the attitude, zeroed in on the idea, discovered it to be something he and his NT development team hadn't thought of*, and I'd be willing to bet some form of that idea will make its way into the final release of Windows 2000. I'm not saying I love everything MS does, in fact I'd never work for them myself - but Gates and MS *are* worth looking at since you brought them up. Gates *is* open, very open, to ideas very different from his own. He *doesn't* think he can possibly have the intelligence and insight necessary to adapt to a fast and complex world - but he does create a corporate culture that clearly *can*. Not only does he not squash disagreement and criticism, *HE GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO SEEK IT*. My friends tell me the company continually tries things - some from Gates, others from various different departments. Some succeed, some fail - but Gates always pays attention to *OBJECTIVE MEASURES*, not his own ideas. If a direction he initiated is failing, he is as quick and brutal about shutting it down as he would be to shut down a project he disagreed with. And if something initiated by someone else begins to show success - even if he didn't think it had much of a chance - he is as quick to feed it with further resources as he would be if it were his own idea. Fact is, Microsoft pays *way* more attention to the world around itself than the TS does. Gates makes himself accessible to both employees as well as the general public, and voluntarily and purposefully seeks to *LEARN* from his critics, not shut their mouths. The result is a company full of people filled with almost a religious fervor, deeply committed to objective results, producing software used on 90% of the world's PC's, and continuing to survive in an industry that every year sees small companies become huge, and huge companies fail overnight. Their *end* is to make money. Enormous amounts of money. And in that they differ from Theosophy. But a number of lessons might be learned from their *means*. Their employees have a committment, a fire, very similar to the total committment the early *Theosophists* had. I can only imagine what it would look like to see a modern day TS ... with a leadership that *cared* about whether the TS was successful at *communicating* with the human society they are allegedly there to serve. That was deeply *disturbed* about dramatic declines in membership. That was not only open to, but *sought* the ideas of both its supporters and its harshest critics. That *DIDN'T* think it knew better than "the masses" or other Theosophists, but instead focussed on creating a culture that drew the best of the intellect, creativity, and spiritual understanding out of its entire membership, and directed it towards the larger goal of human service in the world. That was capable of inspiring even a fraction of the committment HPB and the founders did. Blast at Microsoft all you want - but it is as (*objectively*) successful as it is (at least in part) *because* of the very principles I was claiming healthy organizations in the modern world follow - and the TS is (*objectively*) failing (at least in part) because it isn't. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:35:13 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar JRC writes to Kantinka: > > Hearing these things may make you uncomfortable, and may cause a bit of > defensiveness. But I ought to mention that the reason that a lot of > discussion on TS Internet lists seems to you "pessimistic", and may seem to > dwell unduly on unpleasent topics, is because the Internet is the *ONLY* > avenue where any dissent is *permitted*, because it is the one avenue the > official leaderships have absolutely no control over And Alan adds: It is also worth considering that those of us who are on the list(s) are here because notwithstanding any bad, severe, or downright evil things that have been done to them by TS officials, we are here because we still CARE about the heritage of genuine THEOSOPHY. It is clear that we are together with you in this. Sincerely, Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:24:24 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 06:20 PM 09/13/1999 -0500, you wrote: >>> *HEALTHY* organizations (indeed, even healthy governments) not only >>> provide avenues and forums for their critics, but even see such >dissenting >>> voices as a principle means of *maintaining* their health. Their >>leaderships >>> *understand* they will have to be accountable. Recently a very interesting sketch of a New Age top executive was in Wall Street Journal. This guy who heads the Ingram Micro - the largest computer distributor in the US, is known for applying New Age principles in his corporate environment. When he was at AT&T, he was known as Juice because he would invite people to join him at his office not for cup of coffee but a glass of juice - vegetable or fruit -- and he had ample supply at hand at all times. When he joined Ingram Micro, he called himself as the Coach and all employees are associates. He had an open door policy. He gave out his home telephone numbers to everyone so that they can call him and talk to him on any issue. He even set up a 800 number and one time he gave this out on a CNBC appearance. His thinking was in the information age which is unstructured, the hierarchical thinking and operation is dead. I think here is a man who understood what is going on and was able to break the traditional thinking and setup. It also reminds me of Krishnamurti who always when discussing anything with anyone or a group will say let us discuss together as friends -- an indication of meeting and acting on the "level' -- as equals. Does not these things display practice of Brotherhood/Sistehood/Siblinghood -- the first object of TS? May be some of these instances give us hints of the way things will be done in the next millenium. The Victorian thinking is dead. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:35:26 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 08:22 AM 09/13/1999 -0500, JRC wrote: >joined a discussion on this list (though we have it on good authority that >they *read* it with great interest)? In the last 4 years I have been on the lists, I learnt about things I have not known in 40 years of association with theosophy. So where else they can get info which is important, valuable, useful, timely and also enlightening and it is freeeeeeeeee. No donations or fees or contributions to computer or software or travel or this or that fund!!!!. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 21:37:24 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 02:35 AM 09/14/1999 +0100, you wrote: JRC writes to Kantinka: Hearing these things may make you uncomfortable, and may cause a bit of defensiveness. But I ought to mention that the reason that a lot of discussion on TS Internet lists seems to you "pessimistic", and may seem to dwell unduly on unpleasent topics, is because the Internet is the *ONLY* avenue where any dissent is *permitted*, because it is the one avenue the official leaderships have absolutely no control over And Alan adds: It is also worth considering that those of us who are on the list(s) are here because notwithstanding any bad, severe, or downright evil things that have been done to them by TS officials, we are here because we still CARE about the heritage of genuine THEOSOPHY. It is clear that we are together with you in this. Sincerely, Alan Amen. mkr PS: It appears that there was once an attempt to moderate this list, which failed because the JEM who owns the list and is in Internet business firmly put it down. Thanks John. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:30:24 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Internet Disorganization and harmony of the Universe Harmony of the Universe and disorganization of Internet. Executives from some of the largest multinational companies will soon meet in Paris to discuss how to tame Internet. Internet's wide spread use was not forseen by any of the large multinational companies and in fact most woke up one day find the pervasive use of Internet which they could no longer ignore. Had these companies had a hand at the early stages of growth, they would have tried to influence its growth to suit their pockets. It is to be noted that some do not understand that the whole nature of Internet is disorganization. The planned meeting is another attempt to organize it with committees. Many see the meeting is yet another attempt by big business to dominate the lucrative industry squashing innovation along the way. One professor commented "The Internet offers some unique opportunities to really change the economic base of the world. But most of them do not want change." As soon as companies become big, they want status quo. It is true of all organizations and Theosophical is no exception. That is optimal for them but not for the world at large. There is some similarity between the disorganization of Internet and that discord is the harmony of the Universe. On the latter, there is a reference to it in Mahatma K.H.'s letter #85 to APS. Here is the quote which has some additional material of some interest re: TS. ================ I need hardly point out how the proposed arrangement is calculated to lead to a harmonious progress of the "L.L. T.S." It is a universally admitted fact that the marvellous success of the Theosophical Society in India is due entirely to its principle of wise and respectful toleration of each other's opinions and beliefs. Not even the President-Founder has the right directly or indirectly to interfere with the freedom of thought of the humblest member, least of all to seek to influence his personal opinion. It is only in the absence of this generous consideration, that even the faintest shadow of difference arms seekers after the same truth, otherwise earnest and sincere, with the scorpion-whip of hatred against their brothers, equally sincere and earnest. Deluded victims of distorted truth, they forget, or never knew, that discord is the harmony of the Universe. Thus in the Theos. Society, each part, as in the glorious fugues of the immortal Mozart, ceaselessly chases the other in harmonious discord on the paths of Eternal progress to meet and finally blend at the threshold of the pursued goal into one harmonious whole, the key-note in nature [Sanskrit characters for "Sat."] Absolute justice makes no difference between the many and the few. Therefore, while thanking the majority of the "L.L" Theosophists for their "loyalty" to us their invisible teachers, we must at the same time, remind them that their President, Mrs. Kingsford, is loyal and true also -- to that which she believes to be the Truth. And, as she is thus loyal and true to her convictions, however small the minority that may side with her at present, the majority led by Mr. Sinnett, our representative in London, cannot with justice charge her with the guilt, which -- since she has emphatically disclaimed all intention of breaking the letter or the spirit of Article VI of the Rules of the Parent Theos. Society (which please see and read) -- is one only in the eyes of those who would be rather too severe. Every Western Theosophist should learn and remember, especially those of them who would be our followers -- that in our Brotherhood, all personalities sink into one idea -- abstract right and absolute practical justice for all. And that, though we may not say with the Christians, "return good for evil" -- we repeat with Confucius -- "return good for good; for evil -- JUSTICE." Thus, the Theosophists of Mrs. K.'s way of thinking, -- were they even to oppose some of us personally to the bitter end, -- are entitled to as much respect and consideration (so long as they are sincere) from us and their fellow-members of opposite views, as those who are ready with Mr. Sinnett to follow absolutely but our special teaching. A dutiful regard for these rules in life will always promote the best interests of all concerned. It is necessary for the parallel progress of the groups under Mrs. K. and Mr. S. that neither should interfere with the beliefs and rights of the other. And it is seriously expected that both of them will be actuated by an earnest and sleepless desire to respect the philosophical independence of each other, while preserving at the same time their unity as a whole -- namely the objects of the Parent Theos. Society in their integrity -- and those of the London Lodge, in their slight modification. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:23:01 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar Dear Jerry, and Alan, Jerry wrote: > Perhaps this discussion has tended in the wrong direction. I hope you aren't getting the feeling anyone is saying you ought to do anything. There certainly are a few thousand members still in the American section, and hundreds in other sections. And that is just the Adyar organization. A good number of people belong without running into any difficulties at all - but there are all sorts of motives and expectations for being a member (of any organization) ... most folks in Theosophy simply wish to study topics that interest them, and pay little if any attention to the way the organization is run. Relatively few even bother to vote in elections, let alone spend the time and energy to examine the minutes of board meetings, or financial statements, or look at membership figures. And of those that do, few of *them* do anything other than take the "official" pronouncements of the leaderships at face value, or attempt to gain information from any channels other than the publications controlled, produced, and distributed by the leaderships. And no one is saying any Theosophist *ought* to. > One question that is asked a lot, and people all over the world are worrying about, is the membership issue. People are worrying. And from the bottom up, the internet is getting into the TS. > why do you suppose that in an era when > organizations all over the world are overwhelmingly embracing the Internet > as a fanatastic means of growing their ranks and communicating with their > members, that not a single *elected official* of the TS Board has ever > joined a discussion on this list (though we have it on good authority that > they *read* it with great interest)? Yes, I also have that impression (that it is read, I mean) > By the same token, however, please understand that others, *MANY* others, have had experiences with the TS quite different than yours, have witnessed tricks and actions by the elected leaderships so low and dirty that in other organizations they'd get people booted out of office in disgrace, and that regardless of the fact that many don't want to hear about these things, and will get defensive (and in some cases even attack) when they do, *I* perceive the TS to be *dying*, due to the attitudes and activities of its leaderships (both international and in some national sections). I can point to a whole number of variables and characteristics that are common to any organization on the verge of dissolution (a great deal of study has gone into the various stages of organizational lifecycles, and the TS is not "special" in any way - if we permit it to die, the "Masters" aren't gonna come out of the blue and save it ... in fact several of them - if you believe the Mahatma Letters - didn't think it had much of a chance in the first place). And because the internet is the only place *ANY* dissenting views can even be voiced (so much for freedom of thought) I *will* keep periodically stirring the soup.> Yes, I appreciate your worries and in fact share a lot of them, though of course there does not seem to be a way of checking them. If I have come across differently, I am sorry about that. > And frankly, the fact that speaking such things, raising dissenting opinions, voicing complaints, pointing at behaviours on the part of the leadership, at objective measures that show an organization in a dangerous decline, and at the connection between the two - the fact that this is considered everything from "pessimistic" to "evil" is itself a sign of the decline. *HEALTHY* organizations (indeed, even healthy governments) not only provide avenues and forums for their critics, but even see such dissenting voices as a principle means of *maintaining* their health. Their leaderships *understand* they will have to be accountable. Their members *understand* that while they may disagree with the critics and agree with the leadership at any particular moment, that it is *profoundly* important that no voices be silenced ... because at some time down the road they may *themselves* be the one disagreeing with a leadership, and they would not want *their* voices silenced.> aye. Which is one of the reasons why I am on the net in the first place. Here I hear more about those things, than within the TS. And you are right, that is worrysome. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 08:21:50 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 11:23 AM 09/14/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >One question that is asked a lot, and people all over the >world are worrying about, is the membership issue. People >are worrying. And from the bottom up, the internet is >getting into the TS. In line with the democratic approach, where many things are done bottom up, you are very perceptive in your observation. How else internet could get in? It is a new technology that only current generation is really into it. While some old folks are also into it, many either do not understand or just ignore. Much of the leadership is old; they are set in their ways of thinking and doing for a long time; One should not be surprised if they do not understand Internet or do not know how to use it as a tool for theosophy. When the French Revolution took place, it is the public driven by the ideals that started it. Hopefully, in spite of the lack of participation from the leadership, I hope the membership takes the use of Internet in their hands and spread theosophy. It is already happening; look at the maillists which are not owned or controlled by the organizations. Internet may be the saviour of theosophy in the next millenium. mkr PS: I will respond later to your earliest msg. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:47:06 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Lock-step mentality JRC wrote: >Fact is, Microsoft pays *way* more attention to the world around itself than >the TS does. Gates makes himself accessible to both employees as well as the >general public, and voluntarily and purposefully seeks to *LEARN* from his >critics, not shut their mouths. The result is a company full of people >filled with almost a religious fervor, deeply committed to objective >results, producing software used on 90% of the world's PC's, and continuing >to survive in an industry that every year sees small companies become huge, >and huge companies fail overnight. Whoa! I'll agree that Microsoft pays more attention to the world than the TS, but that does not mean that Microsoft has "good" intentions nore does it mean that Microsoft's way is to be emulated by those in the "spiritual business." Microsoft, as you say, has managed to dominate 90% of the world's PC's - meaning, it's their way or no way. There are many paths to the Divine; to demand or manipulate people to do it your way, or to limit ways, is not admirable. Nor do I agree that approaching Theosophy with a "religious fervor" (as Microsoft's employees do) is a wise philosophy. Too much committment to something can make one blind and unintentionally cruel. One walks a fine line between "religious fervor" and self-righteousness. Microsoft may have succeeded in securing material wealth, pushing others out of business, and steering people like sheep in the computer field, but they would make lousy spiritual workers. Spiritual "success" cannot necessarily be counted in numbers - for if 90% of the whole world thinks "wrongly" about issues of Compassion and spirituality, it cannot be hailed as a "success." Microsoft's philosophy is good for Microsoft; but not necessarily for Apple. It is the same with Theosophy. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "John" Subject: ADV. Music & Message on Hold 1. ARE YOU PAYING TO ADVERTISE YOUR PHONE NUMBER IN THE YELLOW PAGES? 2. DO YOU HAVE TO PUT CALLERS ON HOLD? 3. ARE CALLERS ON HOLD HEARING ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS, OR: are they listening to silence (5 seconds seems like 30 seconds). WHY NOT TELL THEM ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS: Such as any special products, business hours and location, special services you may perform, along with music between the information. WE have been in the Telephone ON HOLD Music & Message business for over 9 years. We manufacture our own SOLID STATE unit (no moving parts to wear out) with a FIVE YEAR WARRANTY. Our standard list price for a 4 Minute system (which includes the first custom message) is $595.00. The price during SEPTEMBER & October will be $495.00. Mention this number, 9-9-99 and receive a 10% discount. All prices are FOB Monroe, MI. We accept Visa, Mastercard, & AMEX plus COD. 30 DAY MONEY BACK POLICY WE WILL NOT BE UNDERSOLD ON AN EQUAL PRODUCT QUOTE! 2 or 3 line phone systems not included. PLEASE CALL US AT 888-546-5348 between 8AM and 5PM EDT Monday thru Friday for more information. ***************************************************************** Please Remove at: mailto:reessdavis@netscape.net?subject=remove ***************************************************************** From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 03:02:08 EDT From: Franksmz@aol.com Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality It's the first time i write an answer on this list. I'm french and don't understand the meaning of the discussion about microsoft. where is Theosophy? why do they compare the goals of a company wich is an uncomplete (physical-psychic) entity, with the goals of a complete entity (spiritual-psychic-physical). Can i say that the shoes maker who works near my village gives more attention to the world around itself than theosophists? No way! All companies work before for themselves. All theosophists work before for all beings. I don't see what a discussion like this can give to us. FS From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:47:45 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality Franksmz@aol.com wrote: > It's the first time i write an answer on this list. I'm french and don't > understand the meaning of the discussion about microsoft. where is Theosophy? > why do they compare the goals of a company wich is an uncomplete > (physical-psychic) entity, with the goals of a complete entity > (spiritual-psychic-physical). Can i say that the shoes maker who works near > my village gives more attention to the world around itself than theosophists? > No way! > All companies work before for themselves. All theosophists work before for > all beings. > I don't see what a discussion like this can give to us. Well, it gave us you. That's ONE good thing. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 09:53:02 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: September 14, 1999 Sept 15th 1999 May I say a few words? There is interesting reading to be had in Mahatma Letters. For instance on p. 352 (Old Edition # 62) The Master writes to Sinnett that he was the one who in spite of opposition won the right to try and put theosophy before the West and Europe and America.. I saying this he reveals what the strict methods of the Lodge are. If we turn to page 398 --- he speaks of the difficulties that arose in the TS in London and differences of opinion there. He gives a hint of the Laws that rule behind the scenes. He also speaks to the original purposes of the establishment of the TS as follow: "...the purpose we have all at heart, namely the dissemination of TRUTH through Esoteric doctrines, conveyed by whatever religious channel, and the effacement of crass materialism and blind prejudices and skepticism." ML 398 bottom If we all take those statements to heart as the core of the effort of Theosophy in this era, then such differences as a re personal can be dropped and forgotten since all they do is divide us one from the other. It is Unity that is essential -- the seeking for TRUTH, and then the application of that to the world situation which begins in our homes and at our doors. It is not far away duties, but those which we can do where we are that are going to count. We need to let the ideal of UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD ring out and touch the heart of all who hear it spoken of. and we need the wisdom of the original teachings of Theosophy to be able to adequately explain its value. With best wishes to all, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 > Subject: Internet Disorganization and harmony of the Universe > From: M K Ramadoss > Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:30:24 -0500 Harmony of the Universe and disorganization of Internet. Executives from some of the largest multinational companies will soon meet in Paris to discuss how to tame Internet. Internet's wide spread use was not forseen by any of the large multinational companies and in fact most woke up one day find the pervasive use of Internet which they could no longer ignore. Had these companies had a hand at the early stages of growth, they would have tried to influence its growth to suit their pockets. It is to be noted that some do not understand that the whole nature of Internet is disorganization. The planned meeting is another attempt to organize it with committees. Many see the meeting is yet another attempt by big business to dominate the lucrative industry squashing innovation along the way. One professor commented "The Internet offers some unique opportunities to really change the economic base of the world. But most of them do not want change." As soon as companies become big, they want status quo. It is true of all organizations and Theosophical is no exception. That is optimal for them but not for the world at large. There is some similarity between the disorganization of Internet and that discord is the harmony of the Universe. On the latter, there is a reference to it in Mahatma K.H.'s letter #85 to APS. Here is the quote which has some additional material of some interest re: TS. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D I need hardly point out how the proposed arrangement is calculated to lead to a harmonious progress of the "L.L. T.S." It is a universally admitted fact that the marvellous success of the Theosophical Society in India is due entirely to its principle of wise and respectful toleration of each other's opinions and beliefs. Not even the President-Founder has the right directly or indirectly to interfere with the freedom of thought of the humblest member, least of all to seek to influence his personal opinion. It is only in the absence of this generous consideration, that even the faintest shadow of difference arms seekers after the same truth, otherwise earnest and sincere, with the scorpion-whip of hatred against their brothers, equally sincere and earnest. Deluded victims of distorted truth, they forget, or never knew, that discord is the harmony of the Universe. Thus in the Theos. Society, each part, as in the glorious fugues of the immortal Mozart, ceaselessly chases the other in harmonious discord on the paths of Eternal progress to meet and finally blend at the threshold of the pursued goal into one harmonious whole, the key-note in nature [Sanskrit characters for "Sat."] Absolute justice makes no difference between the many and the few. Therefore, while thanking the majority of the "L.L" Theosophists for their "loyalty" to us their invisible teachers, we must at the same time, remind them that their President, Mrs. Kingsford, is loyal and true also -- to that which she believes to be the Truth. And, as she is thus loyal and true to her convictions, however small the minority that may side with her at present, the majority led by Mr. Sinnett, our representative in London, cannot with justice charge her with the guilt, which -- since she has emphatically disclaimed all intention of breaking the letter or the spirit of Article VI of the Rules of the Parent Theos. Society (which please see and read) -- is one only in the eyes of those who would be rather too severe. Every Western Theosophist should learn and remember, especially those of them who would be our followers -- that in our Brotherhood, all personalities sink into one idea -- abstract right and absolute practical justice for all. And that, though we may not say with the Christians, "return good for evil" -- we repeat with Confucius -- "return good for good; for evil -- JUSTICE." Thus, the Theosophists of Mrs. K.'s way of thinking, -- were they even to oppose some of us personally to the bitter end, -- are entitled to as much respect and consideration (so long as they are sincere) from us and their fellow-members of opposite views, as those who are ready with Mr. Sinnett to follow absolutely but our special teaching. A dutiful regard for these rules in life will always promote the best interests of all concerned. It is necessary for the parallel progress of the groups under Mrs. K. and Mr. S. that neither should interfere with the beliefs and rights of the other. And it is seriously expected that both of them will be actuated by an earnest and sleepless desire to respect the philosophical independence of each other, while preserving at the same time their unity as a whole -- namely the objects of the Parent Theos. Society in their integrity -- and those of the London Lodge, in their slight modification. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 11:23:01 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar Dear Jerry, and Alan, Jerry wrote: > Perhaps this discussion has tended in the wrong direction. I hope you aren't getting the feeling anyone is saying you ought to do anything. There certainly are a few thousand members still in the American section, and hundreds in other sections. And that is just the Adyar organization. A good number of people belong without running into any difficulties at all - but there are all sorts of motives and expectations for being a member (of any organization) ... most folks in Theosophy simply wish to study topics that interest them, and pay little if any attention to the way the organization is run. Relatively few even bother to vote in elections, let alone spend the time and energy to examine the minutes of board meetings, or financial statements, or look at membership figures. And of those that do, few of *them* do anything other than take the "official" pronouncements of the leaderships at face value, or attempt to gain information from any channels other than the publications controlled, produced, and distributed by the leaderships. And no one is saying any Theosophist *ought* to. > One question that is asked a lot, and people all over the world are worrying about, is the membership issue. People are worrying. And from the bottom up, the internet is getting into the TS. > why do you suppose that in an era when > organizations all over the world are overwhelmingly embracing the Internet > as a fanatastic means of growing their ranks and communicating with their > members, that not a single *elected official* of the TS Board has ever > joined a discussion on this list (though we have it on good authority that > they *read* it with great interest)? Yes, I also have that impression (that it is read, I mean) > By the same token, however, please understand that others, *MANY* others, have had experiences with the TS quite different than yours, have witnessed tricks and actions by the elected leaderships so low and dirty that in other organizations they'd get people booted out of office in disgrace, and that regardless of the fact that many don't want to hear about these things, and will get defensive (and in some cases even attack) when they do, *I* perceive the TS to be *dying*, due to the attitudes and activities of its leaderships (both international and in some national sections). I can point to a whole number of variables and characteristics that are common to any organization on the verge of dissolution (a great deal of study has gone into the various stages of organizational lifecycles, and the TS is not "special" in any way - if we permit it to die, the "Masters" aren't gonna come out of the blue and save it ... in fact several of them - if you believe the Mahatma Letters - didn't think it had much of a chance in the first place). And because the internet is the only place *ANY* dissenting views can even be voiced (so much for freedom of thought) I *will* keep periodically stirring the soup.> Yes, I appreciate your worries and in fact share a lot of them, though of course there does not seem to be a way of checking them. If I have come across differently, I am sorry about that. > And frankly, the fact that speaking such things, raising dissenting opinions, voicing complaints, pointing at behaviours on the part of the leadership, at objective measures that show an organization in a dangerous decline, and at the connection between the two - the fact that this is considered everything from "pessimistic" to "evil" is itself a sign of the decline. *HEALTHY* organizations (indeed, even healthy governments) not only provide avenues and forums for their critics, but even see such dissenting voices as a principle means of *maintaining* their health. Their leaderships *understand* they will have to be accountable. Their members *understand* that while they may disagree with the critics and agree with the leadership at any particular moment, that it is *profoundly* important that no voices be silenced ... because at some time down the road they may *themselves* be the one disagreeing with a leadership, and they would not want *their* voices silenced.> aye. Which is one of the reasons why I am on the net in the first place. Here I hear more about those things, than within the TS. And you are right, that is worrysome. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 08:21:50 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 11:23 AM 09/14/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >One question that is asked a lot, and people all over the >world are worrying about, is the membership issue. People >are worrying. And from the bottom up, the internet is >getting into the TS. In line with the democratic approach, where many things are done bottom up, you are very perceptive in your observation. How else internet could get in? It is a new technology that only current generation is really into it. While some old folks are also into it, many either do not understand or just ignore. Much of the leadership is old; they are set in their ways of thinking and doing for a long time; One should not be surprised if they do not understand Internet or do not know how to use it as a tool for theosophy. When the French Revolution took place, it is the public driven by the ideals that started it. Hopefully, in spite of the lack of participation from the leadership, I hope the membership takes the use of Internet in their hands and spread theosophy. It is already happening; look at the maillists which are not owned or controlled by the organizations. Internet may be the saviour of theosophy in the next millenium. mkr PS: I will respond later to your earliest msg. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 21:47:06 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Lock-step mentality JRC wrote: >Fact is, Microsoft pays *way* more attention to the world around itself than >the TS does. Gates makes himself accessible to both employees as well as the >general public, and voluntarily and purposefully seeks to *LEARN* from his >critics, not shut their mouths. The result is a company full of people >filled with almost a religious fervor, deeply committed to objective >results, producing software used on 90% of the world's PC's, and continuing >to survive in an industry that every year sees small companies become huge, >and huge companies fail overnight. Whoa! I'll agree that Microsoft pays more attention to the world than the TS, but that does not mean that Microsoft has "good" intentions nore does it mean that Microsoft's way is to be emulated by those in the "spiritual business." Microsoft, as you say, has managed to dominate 90% of the world's PC's - meaning, it's their way or no way. There are many paths to the Divine; to demand or manipulate people to do it your way, or to limit ways, is not admirable. Nor do I agree that approaching Theosophy with a "religious fervor" (as Microsoft's employees do) is a wise philosophy. Too much committment to something can make one blind and unintentionally cruel. One walks a fine line between "religious fervor" and self-righteousness. Microsoft may have succeeded in securing material wealth, pushing others out of business, and steering people like sheep in the computer field, but they would make lousy spiritual workers. Spiritual "success" cannot necessarily be counted in numbers - for if 90% of the whole world thinks "wrongly" about issues of Compassion and spirituality, it cannot be hailed as a "success." Microsoft's philosophy is good for Microsoft; but not necessarily for Apple. It is the same with Theosophy. Kym --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=3Dtheos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 10:59:31 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: Theosophy Study List > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 4:47 AM > Subject: Lock-step mentality Kym, replying to JRC wrote: > Nor do I agree that approaching Theosophy with a "religious fervor" (as > Microsoft's employees do) is a wise philosophy. Too much committment to > something can make one blind and unintentionally cruel. One walks a fine > line between "religious fervor" and self-righteousness. > Maybe Theosophical sites and writings should carry a Health Warning: "Too much Religious Fervor Can Damage Your Health." (and that of others) TIC Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:42:33 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality I figured I'd get in a little trouble for using Microsoft as an example ... simply because virtually everyone reacts to the mere mention of the name these days. And there was a real danger my comments would be misunderstood, not read carefully, or taken out of context. And they were. I'd better clarify. >Whoa! I'll agree that Microsoft pays more attention to the world than the >TS, but that does not mean that Microsoft has "good" intentions nore does >it mean that Microsoft's way is to be emulated by those in the "spiritual >business." I never said Microsoft had good or bad intentions - in fact very clearly said that their *end* (making piles of money) was very different from the end pursued by Theosophy. Nor did I bring up Microsoft. Someone else did, in what I believe was a sarcastic response to my sketch of what a responsive organization or government in the modern world looked like. In fact, I was explicitly clear that our ends were different, and never said we should "emulate" Microsoft. What I *did* do was attempt to contrast the current TS leadership with the Microsoft leadership, and I *did* say that there was probably something to be learned from looking at some of the *means* Microsoft used to achieve its ends. (I believe) the current TS is dying - the leadership inbred and membership numbers dwindling - because it is still running according to 19th century models, and has utterly failed to adjust its attitudes (or even its language) to present its wisdom to a world far far different from the one HPB lived in. Do you think there is *nothing* to be learned from looking at a person and a company that, despite people's emotional reactions to it, clearly *has* figured out how to run a successful organization, and clearly *does* know how to respond to the world it works in? And I'd also be careful about painting Microsoft or Gates as all that evil. He and his wife now run the single largest non-profit trust in the world, and over the next few years the money will in part be spent to buy innoculations and vaccinations for millions (*millions*) of poor children in the developing world. As with most people with larger than normal amounts of money or power - he's a mixed bag. He's not a saint. But he's also not the devil. When he's selling Windows 2000 he is as vicious a competitor as ever walked the earth. But tell, me, what are his "intentions" in funding a nearly 20 billion dollar charitable trust? Think he's doing it solely for the tax write-off? In fact, that money-grubber might actually wind up doing, in practice, more to ameliorate the suffering of "orphan humanity" than a half-dozen non-profit organizations run by "selfless servents" (a shocking number of whom spend a sizeable amount of the money you give them on their salaries and "administrative" costs ...) put together. >Microsoft, as you say, has managed to dominate 90% of the world's PC's - >meaning, it's their way or no way. There are many paths to the Divine; to >demand or manipulate people to do it your way, or to limit ways, is not >admirable. Two things: first - I agree, that demanding or manipulating people to do it your way is not admirable. But Microsoft is not trying to carve a path to the divine - its trying to sell software. I use its web servers and its development tools. It hasn't demanded that I do so, nor manipulated me into doing so. In fact - *name* someone that has actually been manipulated by Microsoft ... you talking about companies? Most of them that have been beaten by MS (and there are many) were run by people equally greedy - they had the same ends, they just weren't as good at pursuing them. The press (and the government) likes to paint pictures of poor helpless little companies being eaten by the giant. But Bill Gates and Paul Allen used to be a couple of those little guys - and they went up against a giant (IBM) ... and won ... and in 5 years Microsoft could just as easily be almost obselete. Are you saying Microsoft should be "nice"? If not companies, do you mean manipulating people? Well, that's the case the government is trying to make - most certainly almost every PC one buys has Windows on it. And it comes with a browser. Poor Netscape! Its just terrible! Netscape's CEO testified about how brutal MS was, and is helping the government try to force MS to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows. Of course, no one really brought up the fact that before Microsoft created Explorer, *Netscape* had a 99% monopoly on the browser market - they had the first commercial web browser in existence. And you had to *buy* it. Very funny to hear *them* now complaining about Microsoft being a monopolist (because Netscape's monopoly is now cut in half). About how Microsoft has the gall to manipulate people into using their browser by ... by what? By *giving it away free*, and forcing Netscape to give *theirs* away free. Have I been manipulated because I'm now getting for free something that Netscape used to make me pay for? I've got four different computers, with four different operating systems (only one of them Microsoft), a half dozen different browsers, and dozens of applications, some of them Microsoft, many of them not. No one that doesn't want to needs to use a single MS product. Second point: Doing things like manipulating elections, completely controlling publications, using membership money against members ... do these thing fall under the category of "... demand or manipulate people to do it your way, or to limit ways ..."? Microsoft makes no pretense about being anything other than a software company - it is a big and sometimes brutal shark - but it is not a shark in a pond of helpless goldfish, merely one of the biggest sharks in a tank full of them. And if it *wasn't* it wouldn't survive for more than a few months. The TS, however, *does* claim that its ends are "spiritual", and its leadership currently *does* demand, manipulate, and limit. You labelled this post "Lock Step mentality". This far more accurately describes the current TS than it does Microsoft. >Nor do I agree that approaching Theosophy with a "religious fervor" (as >Microsoft's employees do) is a wise philosophy. Too much committment to >something can make one blind and unintentionally cruel. One walks a fine >line between "religious fervor" and self-righteousness. Tell that to HPB. There wouldn't *be* a TS were it not for an initial core of people that *did* approach Theosophy with a religious fervor. In this day and age that intensity of committment has gotten a bad name - because most of the people the press shows point their fervor in the wrong direction ... the neo-nazis, fundamentalists, and David Koresh's of the world are now what is associated with the notion. Of course that intensity can be misused and cause problems. So what should we do - all become nameless faceless bland people who calmly hide in little houses and whisper about "the ancient wisdom"? Our leadership be half-hearted bureaucrats who "manage" Theosophy? Is that what the founders intended? Would you have told King to calm down? Gandhi to be careful of becoming blind? HPB to lead a more balanced life? Of course total committment to something can cause problems. It also, however, has been responsible for most of greatest improvements to the life, health, and spiritual advancement of our race. >Microsoft may have succeeded in securing material wealth, pushing others >out of business, and steering people like sheep in the computer field, but >they would make lousy spiritual workers. Again, the people it "pushed" out of business are generally people that would have pushed *it* out of business if they could have. The software industry is *not* filled with selfless servents of humanity. And it has also permitted just as many people to succeed beyond their wildest dreams as it has put out of business. I don't know who has been "steered like a sheep" in the computer field. I'm in the computer field, am in daily contact with people all over the world that also work in the field, some who like MS, and some who loathe them. I can't think of a single one, however, that would think they were being steered or in any way manipulated by Microsoft. If someone *is* a sheep, they'll be steered by whomever is currently most powerful. If not Microsoft, someone else. The problem there is not with the powerful, its in the people behaving like sheep. The *TS*, however, *does* value sheep. If you agree with John Algeo's idea of what Theosohy is, you're fine. If you'll work according to his views, you'll get articles published, even now and then a book contract. If you want, you may get considerable help in getting a position on the board. If you *don't* behave, however, if you actually have the gall to think very differently than he does, come to conclusions different than his ... well, you'll find official publications, and the full resources of the organization unleashed against you. >Spiritual "success" cannot >necessarily be counted in numbers - for if 90% of the whole world thinks >"wrongly" about issues of Compassion and spirituality, it cannot be hailed >as a "success." No, spiritual "success" cannot be counted entirely in numbers. But spiritual failure *CAN BE*. The founders had an *intention* behind the TS. It was *not* to create a tiny little group of people studying esoteric philosophy and believing the "Masters" thought they were special. It was (and they clearly articulated this) to have an effect on the larger world. And the original TS *did*. The current TS is having virtually no effect whatsoever on anything. Almost no one has heard of it. Most of those that have either think it is something from the last century, or as little other than one of thousands of tiny little Hundu-based cults. Can that be hailed as a "success"? >Microsoft's philosophy is good for Microsoft; but not necessarily for >Apple. It is the same with Theosophy. Hell, even *Apple's* philosophy has not necessarily been good for Apple (-:). But that's probably a poor example ... as the general consensus among industry insiders is that Microsoft's philosophy *would* have been the best thing for Apple. In the early days it had a far better underlying operating system, and could have been as dominant as MS is - *but*, while MS opened its systems up (i.e., let computer hardware and chip makers have its code to specifically configure hardware to work with it), Apple refused ... and insisted that only Apple hardware could run Apple software. Clones weren't allowed. (In fact in a now famous conversation, Bill Gates once *told* Steve Jobs that he *should* permit Apple clones ... advice that he ignored ...). The fact that Apple *didn't* adopt Microsoft's philosophy is considered to be one of the single hugest blunders of the computer age. Its why Apple has a 7 or 8% market share, instead of dominating the PC market. But more to the point .... let me be clear about what I did and did not say: I *didn't* say that the TS should emulate Microsoft. I *didn't* say its ends were anything other than commercial. I *didn't* say the TS should adopt Microsoft's market tactics. There are several different aspects to any company, government, or organization ... the relations between the leadership and members (or employees or citizens), the relations between the organization and the people it seeks to serve (or its customers & etc.), and the relations with its competitors (or other countries or groups in the same field). All of your criticisms about Microsoft related to the latter ... but this is the single area that is irrelevant to the discussion (because the TS isn't going to *try* to put the Catholic Church "out of business" - it doesn't really have competitors). What *I* was talking about was the first two, and I was arguing that the TS *could* learn something from them. Specifically, 1. Internally, the MS leadership not only doesn't try to quiet conflicting views, silence people that disagree with Gates, hide from its employees, or privilege people based on anything other than performance. In fact it *seeks* to get powerful, intelligent people, *seeks* conflicting views, *seeks* to keep its eyes open for new directions. The upper management - all the way up to Gates - *seeks* his critics and *learns from them*. This is *VERY* different from the current TS ... and *IS* something I think the TS leadership should learn from. 2. In its relations with its customers, it is virtually *continually* watching closely, continually adjusting what it has to offer, and the form its offered in, to what it perceives to be customer desires. The American TS has lost fully a third of its already miniscule members this decade. Its retention rate is abysmal - even by the standards of the average US non-profit or church organization. Why? Well, no one knows. *NO ONE KNOWS*. No one is even trying to find out. In fact, leadership doesn't even believe its important. I can only imagine what MS would look like if it suddenly lost a third of its customers, if the majority of people that bought a MS product never bought another one. They would consider it a *massive* crisis. Would they say it didn't *matter*? Sit quietly and have the utter arrogance to think that it was *people* that were at fault, that they weren't "advanced" enough, or capable of enough "discipline" to use their products ... (which are *common* responses within the TS - voiced more than once on this list)? Hell no! They'd launch an all out effort to discover *why* people were leaving. They'd try a thousand thing to try to adjust their core programs to better suit the world they were operating in. This is *VERY* different from the current TS ... and *IS* something I think the TS leadership should learn from. Of course no one is going to change "the ancient wisdom" - and it doesn't change. But if *it* isn't changing, and a third of the membership has bolted ... well, what *has* changed? The world to which its being presented, and the leadership that is presenting it. Its occured to no one that there might be a *correspondence* between the gradual (and now virtually total) centralized control over the TS that has occured this decade, and the decline in membership? That there might be a *connection* between the terrible membership retention rates and the fact that membership now pretty much means an almost unbelievably dull monthly publication of articles written mostly by a small little clique of people and approved by John Algeo, and a few letters asking for money for various little pet projects? That its almost ridiculous to live in a world with almost endless new possibilities for groups to distribute information and ideas, and to see the TS still basically using the same ones HPB used? A current *global* campaign (for instance) to get rid of the thousands of land mines that still remain in various countries from wars now over was almost single-handedly begun by a woman who sat in a little rural house in the eastern US, and for three or four hours in the early morning, logged on, and used the internet (eventually catching the attention of the UN, and people like GB's Princess Diana). She emailed everyone and their brother. Visited countless discussion lists, networked with dozens of organizations. And *we* have yet to see a *single* email from a TS President or Board Member on a discussion list *devoted* to theosophy. The TS is *utterly* out of tune with the world around it, its leaders often condescending and arrogant towards humanity, and is failing by all significant measures to achieve the purposes the founders clearly articulated. I was using *some* aspects of the way Microsoft is run, in terms of its internal relations, the openess of its leadership to dealing with criticism, and the attention and responsiveness it gives to the world in which it lives as *examples* of how an organization in the *modern* world survives and thrives. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 19:45:36 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality BTW, hi Kym! Howzit goin'? Haven't seen your name for quite some time ... How goes the school work? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:54:03 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Sai Baba again HI all, I promised (I think) to look up the books I read on Sai Baba. Here they are: Howard Murphet "Sai Baba, Man of Miracles" Samuel H. Sandweiss "Sai Baba. The Holy Man ... and the Psychiatrist" and a collection of lectures of Sai Baba: "Bhagwan Sri Satya Sai Baba, Discourses on the Bhagavad Gita" I vaguely remember also reading a book about him by a woman, but since it is not in my own bookcollection, I must have borrowed it from the theosophical library in Amsterdam. There is a whole Sai Baba-literature, by his devotees. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:44:16 EDT From: Franksmz@aol.com Subject: Re: Sai Baba again If you really study HPB & WQJ books you have for some lifes of work before the practice. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:44:53 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Sai Baba again Howard Murphet, a theosophist, is the one who wrote the biographies of Olcott and HPB. There is also another book on Sai Baba by another theosophist and I do not recall his name or the name of the book. Years ago, a good friend of mine who was then the National Secretary -- Secretary to the Board of Directors of TSA, having read some of the books on Sai Baba wanted to visit him in person and he did. I believe he stayed at Sai Baba's ashram for about 2 months and came back impressed. He was a very long time member of TS and continued to be so. There is also the reported that D. Rajagopal, business manager of Krishnamurti, who was announced to be one of the Apostles and an initiate, sought help from Sai Baba for his health problems. Is it possible that if Rajagopal was an initiate and sought Sai Baba's help, then Sai Baba himself is a greater initiate? We may never know. mkr At 09:54 AM 09/16/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >HI all, I promised (I think) to look up the books I read on Sai Baba. Here they are: Howard Murphet "Sai Baba, Man of Miracles" Samuel H. Sandweiss "Sai Baba. The Holy Man ... and the Psychiatrist" and a collection of lectures of Sai Baba: "Bhagwan Sri Satya Sai Baba, Discourses on the Bhagavad Gita" I vaguely remember also reading a book about him by a woman, but since it is not in my own bookcollection, I must have borrowed it from the theosophical library in Amsterdam. There is a whole Sai Baba-literature, by his devotees. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:37:36 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 14, 1999 In a message dated 9/15/1999 12:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << As soon as companies become big, they want status quo. It is true of all organizations and Theosophical is no exception. That is optimal for them but not for the world at large. >> Follow-up to our French friend's comment, who may not see the comparison between a temporal organization like Microsoft, and a "complete" one like the Theosophical Society - I think it is important to remember that the T.S. consists not only of eternal spirits but also of fallible human beings, who are organized in a temporal way on this plane. Therefore, it seems to me that they could have the same kinds of problems that any organization may develop. These human beings are at various stages of spiritual development, and pettiness may enter the picture as it may in any organization - jealousies, power struggles, infighting. Unfortunate but true. Even Jesus' apostles had problems - just look at what happened with Judas. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:41:04 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: forced out? In a message dated 9/14/1999 12:04:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << discredit them, silence their voices, and shove them out of the Society, and in fact make sure the rest of the membership never hears their voices, nor even begins to ask the questions they are asking. >> I'm just curious - what specific methods have been used to actually shove, or force, people out of the Society? I've been reading the general allusions to such activities but would be interested in specifics on how that is accomplished. Are memberships actually revoked, and people banned from attending meetings? Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:05:59 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: forced out? In a message dated 9/16/99 9:41:26 AM Central Daylight Time, Cybercmh@aol.com writes: > > I'm just curious - what specific methods have been used to actually shove, > or > force, people out of the Society? I've been reading the general allusions > to > such activities but would be interested in specifics on how that is > accomplished. Are memberships actually revoked, and people banned from > attending meetings? legal minds want to know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:52:46 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: forced out? >In a message dated 9/16/99 9:41:26 AM Central Daylight Time, Cybercmh@aol.com >writes: >> I'm just curious - what specific methods have been used to actually shove, >> or >> force, people out of the Society? I've been reading the general allusions >> to >> such activities but would be interested in specifics on how that is >> accomplished. Are memberships actually revoked, and people banned from >> attending meetings? >legal minds want to know. Both of you have been on the list for awhile haven't you? You've heard all this before. Memberships revoked? Hell, Adyar has revoked Charters for entire nations (Canada, Denmark, they gave serious problems to Russia ...). The American TS saw fit to *sue* the Boston Lodge - a massive fiasco ... destroyed it. Wound up costing *us*, the TS membership, somewhere around a half-million dollars in legal fees (yet these people will still say that their *critics* aren't behaving in a "brotherly" fashion!). But don't worry, it'll never happen again. The Board, furious at the non-compliant, shoved through by-laws that pretty much gives them total control over any Lodge they want - including assets that the Lodges themselves have accumulated over the years. I could go on endlessly, but ... why? They got what they want. Total control. They will also be karmically responsible for what they do with it. And so far, what they've done is shrunk membership by fully a third. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:00:17 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Sai Baba again If he is, he sure does a good imitation of a fraud. M K Ramadoss wrote: > Rajagopal was an initiate and sought Sai Baba's help, then Sai Baba himself > is a greater initiate? We may never know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:12:15 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: forced out? JRC wrote: > Both of you have been on the list for awhile haven't you? You've heard all > this before. Memberships revoked? Hell, Adyar has revoked Charters for > entire nations (Canada, Denmark, they gave serious problems to Russia ...). National Sections. The individual members were still members (although I think that revoking the charters was heavy-handed). Canada was a strange case; it actually had TWO national sections. > The American TS saw fit to *sue* the Boston Lodge - a massive fiasco ... > destroyed it. Wound up costing *us*, the TS membership, somewhere around a > half-million dollars in legal fees (yet these people will still say that > their *critics* aren't behaving in a "brotherly" fashion!). Well, the old Boston Lodge went independent (the members who participate here seem pretty Theosophical to me), and I believe is doing OK. In the meantime, the Northeast Federation is attempting to revive a TSA presence in MA. > But don't worry, > it'll never happen again. The Board, furious at the non-compliant, shoved > through by-laws that pretty much gives them total control over any Lodge > they want - including assets that the Lodges themselves have accumulated > over the years. I could go on endlessly, but ... why? Not precisely as you say; reading the National By-Laws, there is nothing there that prevents a Lodge from appealing dissolution in the courts, and, the way I read it, it would be very difficult to get the courts to agree unless there truly was a hostile takeover. The major power of the lodges that was limited by the new bylaws was the ability to transfer the assets of a Lodge to another organization. > They got what they want. Total control. They will also be karmically > responsible for what they do with it. And so far, what they've done is > shrunk membership by fully a third. There is work being done to reverse this trend. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:19:38 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: forced out? > > Both of you have been on the list for awhile haven't you? You've heard all > > this before. Memberships revoked? Hell, Adyar has revoked Charters for > > entire nations (Canada, Denmark, they gave serious problems to Russia ...). > > National Sections. The individual members were still members (although > I think that revoking the charters was heavy-handed). Canada was a > strange case; it actually had TWO national sections. One "approved" and one not. > > The American TS saw fit to *sue* the Boston Lodge - a massive fiasco ... > > destroyed it. Wound up costing *us*, the TS membership, somewhere around a > > half-million dollars in legal fees (yet these people will still say that > > their *critics* aren't behaving in a "brotherly" fashion!). > > Well, the old Boston Lodge went independent (the members who > participate here seem pretty Theosophical to me), and I believe is doing > OK. In the meantime, the Northeast Federation is attempting to revive a > TSA presence in MA. "Went independent" is certainly a nice way of putting it. Makes it sound as though there was just a small disagreement and then they just amicably shook hands and parted ways. And doesn't alter that fact of what Wheaton did one iota. > > But don't worry, > > it'll never happen again. The Board, furious at the non-compliant, shoved > > through by-laws that pretty much gives them total control over any Lodge > > they want - including assets that the Lodges themselves have accumulated > > over the years. I could go on endlessly, but ... why? > > Not precisely as you say; reading the National By-Laws, there is > nothing there that prevents a Lodge from appealing dissolution in the > courts, and, the way I read it, it would be very difficult to get the > courts to agree unless there truly was a hostile takeover. The major > power of the lodges that was limited by the new bylaws was the ability > to transfer the assets of a Lodge to another organization. Not precisely? Well, at least *effectively* Of course there is nothing in the bylaws to prevent a Lodge from seeking redress in the courts. But saying it this way makes it sound as though that was restraint on the part of Wheaton. Fact is, Wheaton could not legally *prevent* a Branch from challenging a decision in court. Trying to pass a by-law stating that Branches "shall not be allowed to use the American court system" would not only be laughed out of court, but would have been much harder to spin. But *in practice* how many Lodges have the money and power and time to go into court against a National Section, capable of far outspending a Lodge - clearly willing to spend considerable amounts of money to get its way, and composed of people employed full time by the TS? Most of them would need to liquidate the very assets in question just to pursue such a remedy. No ... I hope *every* Lodge, every local President and Director - especially those that might want to follow their own views of what Theosophy is, understands that Wheaton now has full power to dissolve any Lodge, and not only refuse to allow that Lodge to give its assets to another Lodge of its choice, but to simply take them and stick them in the Wheaton bank account. Even if these assets were the result of Lodge fundraising, and past gifts from members specifically given to that Lodge. They *won* Bart. The beat all their opponents, spun the story well, and got their control. Don't try now to claim that they don't have it. But beware of centralized control. You may agree with the current lot in power, but a few years in the future a completely different group, with a completely different attitude, could be in power - could decide to mandate that Theosphy goes in a direction *they* choose. And the centralized power you seem to find so positive now could easily be wielded in other directions - and against you and your Lodge. Wheaton claimed they *needed* this centralized control to "protect" the Lodges against takeovers ... against (they said in an attempt to frighten people) the chance that (for instance) another religious group might run a stealth campaign to take over legal control of a Branch, and then sell off its assets (something that, for a variety of reasons, couldn't have been done - and that there had never even been the faintest hint of anyway). It seemed to occur to know one that this just raised the stakes. That it may be now slightly more difficult for a group of radical Hindus (who the hell *would* try to take over a Theosophical branch?) to sieze Branch assets ... it would now take a much larger group, with more disciplined followers, exactly six years to take over the entire National Section. To have, according to the bylaws, *legal* claim to everything at Headquarters as well as the assets of every Lodge in the country. If the danger they *claim* existed really did exist, all they did was take it from being a completely decentralized danger, and aggregated it into one huge danger. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:25:46 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: forced out? At 08:12 PM 09/16/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: National Sections. The individual members were still members (although I think that revoking the charters was heavy-handed). Canada was a strange case; it actually had TWO national sections. Are you saying it is strange to have two national sections? mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:30:37 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: forced out? At 08:12 PM 09/16/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >In the meantime, the Northeast Federation is attempting to revive a >TSA presence in MA. I thought TSA had a powerful presence in MA with a Board Member living in MA. Is it now on life support or dead? Hope the Federation succeeds. Look forward to hearing updates. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:34:05 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: forced out? JRC wrote: They got what they want. Total control. They will also be karmically responsible for what they do with it. And so far, what they've done is shrunk membership by fully a third. At 08:12 PM 09/16/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >There is work being done to reverse this trend. Looking forward to see the *results*, hopefully soon. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 23:46:55 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: forced out? At 08:19 PM 09/16/1999 -0600, JRC wrote: They *won* Bart. The beat all their opponents, spun the story well, and got their control. Don't try now to claim that they don't have it. But beware of centralized control. You may agree with the current lot in power, but a few years in the future a completely different group, with a completely different attitude, could be in power - could decide to mandate that Theosphy goes in a direction *they* choose. And the centralized power you seem to find so positive now could easily be wielded in other directions - and against you and your Lodge. Wheaton claimed they *needed* this centralized control to "protect" the Lodges against takeovers ... against (they said in an attempt to frighten people) the chance that (for instance) another religious group might run a stealth campaign to take over legal control of a Branch, and then sell off its assets (something that, for a variety of reasons, couldn't have been done - and that there had never even been the faintest hint of anyway). It seemed to occur to know one that this just raised the stakes. That it may be now slightly more difficult for a group of radical Hindus (who the hell *would* try to take over a Theosophical branch?) to sieze Branch assets ... it would now take a much left Glad you mentioned a Hindu group. Most of them are in a position to raise far more funds in a month more than many lodges have raised in 100 years. In a small town in Texas, they have already got commitment to nearly 1/2 million in donation and I had the previlege of getting them a 501(c)(3) tax exempt status two days ago -- of course all pro bono work. But a stealth cult can plan and seize control in a decade. larger group, with more disciplined followers, exactly six years to take over the entire National Section. To have, according to the bylaws, *legal* claim to everything at Headquarters as well as the assets of every Lodge in the country. If the danger they *claim* existed really did exist, all they did was take it from being a completely decentralized danger, and aggregated it into one huge danger. left In the early days, when there was a problem in London Lodge, one of the Founders mentioned that the reason for success of TS was decentralization, not central control. So centralization is sync with shrinking of the TS. Of late I know of some members who are not in a mood to give any large funds to lodges specifically because of this. They are interested in the funds use locally and with local control nor remote control. Some of us who are young are likely to see the developments in the next millenium. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 05:36:44 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Interested? Hey y'all! Just wondering if anyone's in the mood for a discussion of practical Theosophy ... Anyone the feels like it ... 1. What's the most interesting spiritual topic you've studied in the last year? Most interesting book you've read? 2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? The most successful? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:45:23 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Interested? Sure. Will post a msg later today. mkr At 05:36 AM 09/17/1999 -0600, you wrote: >Hey y'all! > >Just wondering if anyone's in the mood for a discussion of practical >Theosophy ... > >Anyone the feels like it ... > >1. What's the most interesting spiritual topic you've studied in the last >year? Most interesting book you've read? > >2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? The most successful? > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:38:29 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Blavatsky Archives Online --- More Material Online Today This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0090_01BF0109.8B380120 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm Several new items will be added today. Already on the the web site is = the following rare item from the pen of Colonel Henry S. Olcott. He = writes about his knowledge of Koot Hoomi. Daniel H. Caldwell Published by The Blavatsky Archives Online. Online Edition copyright = 1999. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- The Himalayan Brothers by Henry S. Olcott [Reprinted from Light (London), March 4, 1882, p. 98.]=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0090_01BF0109.8B380120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
 
 
Several new items will be added = today. =20 Already on the the web site is the following rare item from the pen of = Colonel=20 Henry S. Olcott.  He writes about his knowledge of Koot = Hoomi.
 
Daniel H. Caldwell
 
 
 
Published by The Blavatsky = Archives=20 Online.  Online Edition copyright 1999.
The Himalayan=20 Brothers
by Henry S. = Olcott
[Reprinted from Light (London), March 4, 1882, p. = 98.]=20 =
------=_NextPart_000_0090_01BF0109.8B380120-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 15:37:51 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: September 16, 1999 REVOCATION -- EXCOMMUNICATION etc. Sept 17th 1999 Dear Friends: Revocation, Excommunication, etc... But what have those things to do with THEOSOPHY ? Are we degraded to the level of the common churches that we fight over assets and the right interpretation of the teachings? I imagine that anyone who joins the T S does so because of its ideals and because of its brotherhood, and because it means the end of any sectarian fighting or any "authority" as to the interpretation of the literature. And now this ! What a blot on the history of a movement that was started by the Masters ! I read these several posts that narrate the sad story of revocation of membership, and of branches that fight legally for the right to dispose of their assets, and I wonder what about BROTHERHOOD and the original objects of the T S. This is shameful indeed. Can you seriously call yourselves Theosophists" if this is the way in which theosophical principles are applied? Is this the "way to the Masters ?" No, I think not. That is not what theosophy has to teach. In what way is our APPLICATION any better than elsewhere? Are we showing an example of wisdom in all this? Who has recently read again HPB's FIVE MESSAGES ? Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:54:03 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Sai Baba again HI all, I promised (I think) to look up the books I read on Sai Baba. Here they are: Howard Murphet "Sai Baba, Man of Miracles" Samuel H. Sandweiss "Sai Baba. The Holy Man ... and the Psychiatrist" and a collection of lectures of Sai Baba: "Bhagwan Sri Satya Sai Baba, Discourses on the Bhagavad Gita" I vaguely remember also reading a book about him by a woman, but since it is not in my own bookcollection, I must have borrowed it from the theosophical library in Amsterdam. There is a whole Sai Baba-literature, by his devotees. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 04:44:16 EDT From: Franksmz@aol.com Subject: Re: Sai Baba again If you really study HPB & WQJ books you have for some lifes of work before the practice. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 07:44:53 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Sai Baba again Howard Murphet, a theosophist, is the one who wrote the biographies of Olcott and HPB. There is also another book on Sai Baba by another theosophist and I do not recall his name or the name of the book. Years ago, a good friend of mine who was then the National Secretary -- Secretary to the Board of Directors of TSA, having read some of the books on Sai Baba wanted to visit him in person and he did. I believe he stayed at Sai Baba's ashram for about 2 months and came back impressed. He was a very long time member of TS and continued to be so. There is also the reported that D. Rajagopal, business manager of Krishnamurti, who was announced to be one of the Apostles and an initiate, sought help from Sai Baba for his health problems. Is it possible that if Rajagopal was an initiate and sought Sai Baba's help, then Sai Baba himself is a greater initiate? We may never know. mkr At 09:54 AM 09/16/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >HI all, I promised (I think) to look up the books I read on Sai Baba. Here they are: Howard Murphet "Sai Baba, Man of Miracles" Samuel H. Sandweiss "Sai Baba. The Holy Man ... and the Psychiatrist" and a collection of lectures of Sai Baba: "Bhagwan Sri Satya Sai Baba, Discourses on the Bhagavad Gita" I vaguely remember also reading a book about him by a woman, but since it is not in my own bookcollection, I must have borrowed it from the theosophical library in Amsterdam. There is a whole Sai Baba-literature, by his devotees. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:37:36 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 14, 1999 In a message dated 9/15/1999 12:01:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << As soon as companies become big, they want status quo. It is true of all organizations and Theosophical is no exception. That is optimal for them but not for the world at large. >> Follow-up to our French friend's comment, who may not see the comparison between a temporal organization like Microsoft, and a "complete" one like the Theosophical Society - I think it is important to remember that the T.S. consists not only of eternal spirits but also of fallible human beings, who are organized in a temporal way on this plane. Therefore, it seems to me that they could have the same kinds of problems that any organization may develop. These human beings are at various stages of spiritual development, and pettiness may enter the picture as it may in any organization - jealousies, power struggles, infighting. Unfortunate but true. Even Jesus' apostles had problems - just look at what happened with Judas. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:41:04 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: forced out? In a message dated 9/14/1999 12:04:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << discredit them, silence their voices, and shove them out of the Society, and in fact make sure the rest of the membership never hears their voices, nor even begins to ask the questions they are asking. >> I'm just curious - what specific methods have been used to actually shove, or force, people out of the Society? I've been reading the general allusions to such activities but would be interested in specifics on how that is accomplished. Are memberships actually revoked, and people banned from attending meetings? Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:05:59 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: forced out? In a message dated 9/16/99 9:41:26 AM Central Daylight Time, Cybercmh@aol.com writes: > > I'm just curious - what specific methods have been used to actually shove, > or > force, people out of the Society? I've been reading the general allusions > to > such activities but would be interested in specifics on how that is > accomplished. Are memberships actually revoked, and people banned from > attending meetings? legal minds want to know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:52:46 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: forced out? >In a message dated 9/16/99 9:41:26 AM Central Daylight Time, Cybercmh@aol.com >writes: >> I'm just curious - what specific methods have been used to actually shove, >> or >> force, people out of the Society? I've been reading the general allusions >> to >> such activities but would be interested in specifics on how that is >> accomplished. Are memberships actually revoked, and people banned from >> attending meetings? >legal minds want to know. Both of you have been on the list for awhile haven't you? You've heard all this before. Memberships revoked? Hell, Adyar has revoked Charters for entire nations (Canada, Denmark, they gave serious problems to Russia ...). The American TS saw fit to *sue* the Boston Lodge - a massive fiasco ... destroyed it. Wound up costing *us*, the TS membership, somewhere around a half-million dollars in legal fees (yet these people will still say that their *critics* aren't behaving in a "brotherly" fashion!). But don't worry, it'll never happen again. The Board, furious at the non-compliant, shoved through by-laws that pretty much gives them total control over any Lodge they want - including assets that the Lodges themselves have accumulated over the years. I could go on endlessly, but ... why? They got what they want. Total control. They will also be karmically responsible for what they do with it. And so far, what they've done is shrunk membership by fully a third. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:00:17 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Sai Baba again If he is, he sure does a good imitation of a fraud. M K Ramadoss wrote: > Rajagopal was an initiate and sought Sai Baba's help, then Sai Baba himself > is a greater initiate? We may never know. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:12:15 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: forced out? JRC wrote: > Both of you have been on the list for awhile haven't you? You've heard all > this before. Memberships revoked? Hell, Adyar has revoked Charters for > entire nations (Canada, Denmark, they gave serious problems to Russia ...). National Sections. The individual members were still members (although I think that revoking the charters was heavy-handed). Canada was a strange case; it actually had TWO national sections. > The American TS saw fit to *sue* the Boston Lodge - a massive fiasco ... > destroyed it. Wound up costing *us*, the TS membership, somewhere around a > half-million dollars in legal fees (yet these people will still say that > their *critics* aren't behaving in a "brotherly" fashion!). Well, the old Boston Lodge went independent (the members who participate here seem pretty Theosophical to me), and I believe is doing OK. In the meantime, the Northeast Federation is attempting to revive a TSA presence in MA. > But don't worry, > it'll never happen again. The Board, furious at the non-compliant, shoved > through by-laws that pretty much gives them total control over any Lodge > they want - including assets that the Lodges themselves have accumulated > over the years. I could go on endlessly, but ... why? Not precisely as you say; reading the National By-Laws, there is nothing there that prevents a Lodge from appealing dissolution in the courts, and, the way I read it, it would be very difficult to get the courts to agree unless there truly was a hostile takeover. The major power of the lodges that was limited by the new bylaws was the ability to transfer the assets of a Lodge to another organization. > They got what they want. Total control. They will also be karmically > responsible for what they do with it. And so far, what they've done is > shrunk membership by fully a third. There is work being done to reverse this trend. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:19:38 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: forced out? > > Both of you have been on the list for awhile haven't you? You've heard all > > this before. Memberships revoked? Hell, Adyar has revoked Charters for > > entire nations (Canada, Denmark, they gave serious problems to Russia ...). > > National Sections. The individual members were still members (although > I think that revoking the charters was heavy-handed). Canada was a > strange case; it actually had TWO national sections. One "approved" and one not. > > The American TS saw fit to *sue* the Boston Lodge - a massive fiasco ... > > destroyed it. Wound up costing *us*, the TS membership, somewhere around a > > half-million dollars in legal fees (yet these people will still say that > > their *critics* aren't behaving in a "brotherly" fashion!). > > Well, the old Boston Lodge went independent (the members who > participate here seem pretty Theosophical to me), and I believe is doing > OK. In the meantime, the Northeast Federation is attempting to revive a > TSA presence in MA. "Went independent" is certainly a nice way of putting it. Makes it sound as though there was just a small disagreement and then they just amicably shook hands and parted ways. And doesn't alter that fact of what Wheaton did one iota. > > But don't worry, > > it'll never happen again. The Board, furious at the non-compliant, shoved > > through by-laws that pretty much gives them total control over any Lodge > > they want - including assets that the Lodges themselves have accumulated > > over the years. I could go on endlessly, but ... why? > > Not precisely as you say; reading the National By-Laws, there is > nothing there that prevents a Lodge from appealing dissolution in the > courts, and, the way I read it, it would be very difficult to get the > courts to agree unless there truly was a hostile takeover. The major > power of the lodges that was limited by the new bylaws was the ability > to transfer the assets of a Lodge to another organization. Not precisely? Well, at least *effectively* Of course there is nothing in the bylaws to prevent a Lodge from seeking redress in the courts. But saying it this way makes it sound as though that was restraint on the part of Wheaton. Fact is, Wheaton could not legally *prevent* a Branch from challenging a decision in court. Trying to pass a by-law stating that Branches "shall not be allowed to use the American court system" would not only be laughed out of court, but would have been much harder to spin. But *in practice* how many Lodges have the money and power and time to go into court against a National Section, capable of far outspending a Lodge - clearly willing to spend considerable amounts of money to get its way, and composed of people employed full time by the TS? Most of them would need to liquidate the very assets in question just to pursue such a remedy. No ... I hope *every* Lodge, every local President and Director - especially those that might want to follow their own views of what Theosophy is, understands that Wheaton now has full power to dissolve any Lodge, and not only refuse to allow that Lodge to give its assets to another Lodge of its choice, but to simply take them and stick them in the Wheaton bank account. Even if these assets were the result of Lodge fundraising, and past gifts from members specifically given to that Lodge. They *won* Bart. The beat all their opponents, spun the story well, and got their control. Don't try now to claim that they don't have it. But beware of centralized control. You may agree with the current lot in power, but a few years in the future a completely different group, with a completely different attitude, could be in power - could decide to mandate that Theosphy goes in a direction *they* choose. And the centralized power you seem to find so positive now could easily be wielded in other directions - and against you and your Lodge. Wheaton claimed they *needed* this centralized control to "protect" the Lodges against takeovers ... against (they said in an attempt to frighten people) the chance that (for instance) another religious group might run a stealth campaign to take over legal control of a Branch, and then sell off its assets (something that, for a variety of reasons, couldn't have been done - and that there had never even been the faintest hint of anyway). It seemed to occur to know one that this just raised the stakes. That it may be now slightly more difficult for a group of radical Hindus (who the hell *would* try to take over a Theosophical branch?) to sieze Branch assets ... it would now take a much larger group, with more disciplined followers, exactly six years to take over the entire National Section. To have, according to the bylaws, *legal* claim to everything at Headquarters as well as the assets of every Lodge in the country. If the danger they *claim* existed really did exist, all they did was take it from being a completely decentralized danger, and aggregated it into one huge danger. --- END OF DIGEST --- You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: DALVAL@NWC.NET List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=3Dtheos-l To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 19:05:33 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: RE: theos-l digest: September 16, 1999 REVOCATION -- EXCOMMUNICATION etc. Dallas: You are right on target. Give you an example of a personal experience.=20 In many correspondences I had with a well known theosophist who carried himself as a scholar and perhaps considers himself as a "leader", I always used to address him in my communication as "Dear Bro. ..." and he used to respond as Dear Bro. Ramadoss, started addressing me as Dear Mr. Ramadoss from the time I disagreed with him on several non-occult non-philosophical matters. It is actions like these that seem to indicate that theosophical ideas and objects are may not very deeply ingrained in spite of "head learning" scholarship and bookish knowledge about the details of cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis.=20 When newbees watch such actions, they are at a loss & wonder about the preaching of brotherhood and non-practice of brotherhood. It is not the fault of theosophy. It is the fault of the persons.=20 On the other hand when you find some very sincere unlearned person deals with another person just motivated the principle of brotherhood, it genuineness touchs everyone's heart and makes a long standing good= impression. mkr At 03:37 PM 09/17/1999 -0700, W. Dallas TenBroeck wrote: Sept 17th 1999 Dear Friends: Revocation, Excommunication, etc... But what have those things to do with THEOSOPHY ? Are we degraded to the level of the common churches that we fight over assets and the right interpretation of the teachings? I imagine that anyone who joins the T S does so because of its ideals and because of its brotherhood, and because it means the end of any sectarian fighting or any "authority" as to the interpretation of the literature. And now this ! What a blot on the history of a movement that was started by the Masters ! I read these several posts that narrate the sad story of revocation of membership, and of branches that fight legally for the right to dispose of their assets, and I wonder what about BROTHERHOOD and the original objects of the T S. This is shameful indeed. Can you seriously call yourselves Theosophists" if this is the way in which theosophical principles are applied? Is this the "way to the Masters ?" No, I think not. That is not what theosophy has to teach. In what way is our APPLICATION any better than elsewhere? Are we showing an example of wisdom in all this? Who has recently read again HPB's FIVE MESSAGES ? Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:44:47 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Interested? ----- Original Message ----- > From: JRC > Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 12:36 PM > Subject: Interested? > Hey y'all! > > Just wondering if anyone's in the mood for a discussion of practical > Theosophy ... > > Anyone the feels like it ... > > 1. What's the most interesting spiritual topic you've studied in the last > year? Most interesting book you've read? Near death experiences. *Life After Death* by Ian Wilson. > > 2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? The most successful? > Providing a priestess for a London-based group in the UK. The most successful was rescuing a sick and neglected farm cat. I have had more love from this cat than from any theosophist. Sorry about that, but there it is. We have a bond which is part of a greater "brotherhood" than that of humanity alone. Only last night I was anxious about him, as he was out and about, so I called his name out loud while sat in the chair watching TV. He came rushing in within two minutes - to see if *I* was alright. We have a lot to learn from the creatures. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:33:37 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 16, 1999 REVOCATION -- EXCOMMUNICATION etc. ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > To: Theosophy Study List > Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 11:37 PM > Subject: RE: theos-l digest: September 16, 1999 REVOCATION -- EXCOMMUNICATION etc. Sept 17th 1999 Dear Friends: Revocation, Excommunication, etc... But what have those things to do with THEOSOPHY ? > That these acts are committed by those who profess to be the GUARDIANS of theosophy. Are we degraded to the level of the common churches that we fight over assets and the right interpretation of the teachings? > Sadly, yes. But these two things do not go together. Fighting over assets is conducted by organisations who have them, or seek to control them. Sadly, the organised Adyar-based THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is noted for doing this. > Some people fight over the interpretation of the teachings. This is bad, as fighting is not brotherhood. However, we are, as seekers after truth, quite legitimately entitled to disagree over interpretations, and to conduct reasoned arguments and discussions over them. I imagine that anyone who joins the T S does so because of its ideals and because of its brotherhood, and because it means the end of any sectarian fighting or any "authority" as to the interpretation of the literature. > They expect to do this, but IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. Get the message. And now this ! What a blot on the history of a movement that was started by the Masters ! > Made not by those who tell the TRUTH about ORGANISED so-called THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETIES, but by the Societies or Sections concerned. And re-read you history, if you will. The Society was started by a committee meeting in New York. The "Masters" are on record as having expressed grave misgivings. I read these several posts that narrate the sad story of revocation of membership, and of branches that fight legally for the right to dispose of their assets, and I wonder what about BROTHERHOOD and the original objects of the T S. This is shameful indeed. > Which is why you regularly over the years see the same kinds of posts coming up again and again. We, the victims of such behavior, want to see it stopped. Are we supposed to *ignore* the shameful acts performed in Theosophy's name? ON any better than elsewhere? Are we showing an example of wisdom in all this? > Wisdom often comes from the people, especially those who have suffered in a worthy cause. It is not confined to the Himalayas. Who has recently read again HPB's FIVE MESSAGES ? > Dunno, but I expect people will, now you have mentioned it. They may well conclude that we who point out the evils committed in her name are acting an her spirit. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 23:36:34 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Atom Splitting and Truth I happened to come across a very interesting passage in the Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge being the discussions on the Stanzas of the First Volume of Secret Doctrine. This contains the replies that HPB gave to questions posed to her. In pp. 57, she states "Therefore, water is an element, if we choose to call it so, *on* *this* *plane* only. In the same way, oxygen and hydrogen in their turn can be split up into other more subtle elements, all being differentiations on one element or universal essence."=20 [highlighting is mine] Looking back 110 years later, how far reaching is the concept of splitting oxygen or hydrogen is =96 a concept that was discussed as a very elementary one.=20 Here was a woman, who was not a scholar or scientist or a PhD, who claimed that all that she has written is from the knowledge that the Adepts have and she was just a scribe and many things she does not understand even though she wrote them. =20 The above is followed by an interesting question and answer. Q: Then all substances on the physical plane are really so many correlations or combinations of these root elements, and ultimately of the one element? A: Most assuredly. *In occultism it is always best to proceed from universals to particulars*. Obviously, the above is the key to understand many concepts that are presented in the SD. While many may give up study of SD saying that it is difficult, the difficulty may be somewhat lessened if we keep the above principle in mind. There is another question and answer which should make us all think. Q: Apparently, then, the whole basis of occultism lies in this, that there is latent within every man a power which can give him true knowledge, a power of perception of truth, which enables him to deal first hand with universals if he will be strictly logical and face the facts. Thus we can proceed from universals to particulars by the innate spiritual forces which is in every man. A: Quite so; this power is inherent in all, but paralyzed by our methods of education, and especially by the Aristotelian and Baconian methods. Hypothesis now reigns triumphant. Again I am astounded how simply and directly HPB has explained the situation. In one of the Mahatma Letters, there is a mention that you need come into Their world. I suppose it is an allusion to the above. Also, Krishnamurti was for 60 years was stating that you can get it immediately, here and now and not step by step in a far distant future life. He was perhaps talking about getting out of the paralysis HPB states above. Something to think about. Mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 00:04:41 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 16, 1999 REVOCATION -- EXCOMMUNICATION etc. Till Internet became a reality and JEM saw the need and the good that a (uncensored) maillist can do and implemented it (at his own personal cost and made is available free to anyone in the world) very little was known about the going ons around the world. This is due to the information channels not being available outside of the official ones. By compartmentalization of information, happenings in one part of the world is rarely known in other parts. For example, I am told that when there was some problem in the Yugoslavian Section, the Danish Section did not know about it till about two years later. Now info flows with the speed of light. This is one of the reasons that we frequently see msgs about the organizational issues coming up here. On a personal note, several years ago, in the pre Internet days, when I inquired one of the officials about the problems in Denmark, the response was how does it concern me, a member of American Section. This seems to be one way information dissemination was curtailed. No more with Internet. mkr At 01:33 AM 09/18/1999 +0100, Alan wrote: ----- Original Message ----- > From: W. Dallas TenBroeck > Date: Friday, September 17, 1999 11:37 PM > Subject: RE: theos-l digest: September 16, 1999 REVOCATION -- EXCOMMUNICATION etc. Sept 17th 1999 Dear Friends: Revocation, Excommunication, etc... But what have those things to do with THEOSOPHY ? That these acts are committed by those who profess to be the GUARDIANS of theosophy. Are we degraded to the level of the common churches that we fight over assets and the right interpretation of the teachings? > Sadly, yes. But these two things do not go together. Fighting over assets is conducted by organisations who have them, or seek to control them. Sadly, the organised Adyar-based THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY is noted for doing this. >>>>> clip <<<<<< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:36:15 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Grave wax JRC wrote: >And there was a real danger my comments would be misunderstood, >not read carefully, or taken out of context. And they were. I reckon that most religious, domestic, and international disputes were all about things being taken out of context. Probably could be applied to some marriages and traffic accidents. Besides, contemplating ideas and statements within their full context is just so time-consuming. . .. >(I believe) the current TS is dying - Maybe it is SUPPOSED to die. Sometimes, only in "death," can something transform. It is horribly painful to have something we love "die," but it is a natural process - we can fight it all we want - but that doesn't mean death will have dominion. >Do you think there is *nothing* to >be learned from looking at a person and a company that, despite people's >emotional reactions to it, clearly *has* figured out how to run a successful >organization, and clearly *does* know how to respond to the world it works >in? Sure, but Microsoft will eventually "die" too. Truth can take care of Itself - "God" can take care of "Godself" - what is eternal is never under threat. We needn't look, in my opinion, for a way to "save" Theosophy. >But tell, me, what are his "intentions" in funding a >nearly 20 billion dollar charitable trust? I haven't a clue what is in Bill Gates' heart and soul. I've no idea why he has started a trust. Tax purposes? Could be. Altruism? Could be. Doesn't matter as long as it helps just one person. >Most of them that have been >beaten by MS (and there are many) were run by people equally greedy - they >had the same ends, they just weren't as good at pursuing them. The press >(and the government) likes to paint pictures of poor helpless little >companies being eaten by the giant. It doesn't matter if they were "equally greedy" - sounds to me like you are suggesting that they 'got what they deserved - died by the sword they lived by.' I do not believe that reasoning can be used as a justification for Microsoft's actions. I do not believe that "becoming like those we despise" is the right path. No one, in my opinion, no matter how cruel, deserves the same cruelty to be inflicted upon them. Remember how people celebrated the death of Ted Bundy with signs that said "Fry him!" or when Jeffrey Dahmer was beaten to death in prison? I did not rejoice nor feel satisfaction nor feel justice was done - I simply saw the same cycle of fear and domination being repeated in simply a different form. >I've got four different computers, with four different >operating systems (only one of them Microsoft), a half dozen different >browsers, and dozens of applications, some of them Microsoft, many of them >not. No one that doesn't want to needs to use a single MS product. FOUR computers?! Is that healthy?! And I do believe we are forced to use MS products - try getting a job and saying "Uh no, I don't know anything about Excel, Access, or Word." Odds are, you won't get hired. I've yet to be at a job interview where familiarity with MS products was not a prerequisite. >Tell that to HPB. There wouldn't *be* a TS were it not for an initial core >of people that *did* approach Theosophy with a religious fervor. HPB offered the world both good ideas and bad ideas. Her open hostility toward those who disagreed with her was unseemly; yet, she was a brilliant woman who overcame rampant misogyny and ignorance. I would have no problem telling HPB that she was both a terrific and, at times, a cruel person. >So what should we do - all become nameless faceless bland >people who calmly hide in little houses and whisper about "the ancient >wisdom"? Yes and no. We needn't advertise that we are "Theosophists" - big deal. It doesn't make us any more special than anyone else. And just because we choose not to fly banners or glue Theosophical "fish" and bumper stickers on our cars does not mean we are "nameless faceless bland people." The best "advertisement" for Theosophy is our actions - we need not apply a label to it. In all honesty, in my opinion, simply referring to ourselves as Theosophists causes a separation from the rest of humanity. I realize, for clarification and conversation sake, that label may be necessary - but it does suggest a "difference." >If you agree with John Algeo's idea of what Theosohy is, you're >fine. I agree. I've never much cared for Algeo's approach either - but there may be a more "Divine" reason that Algeo is in the position he is in. Maybe he is meant to "cause" the death of the TS. >The current TS is having virtually no effect whatsoever >on anything. Almost no one has heard of it. Again, to me, it doesn't matter. Just because someone has never heard the "name" of something does not mean they do not practice it. The TS should be merely a library, a resource - not a life directive. Each individual must make that decision for his/herself. >and *IS* something I think the TS >leadership should learn from. To me, "leadership" in Theosophy is an oxymoron. It doesn't fit. "Leader" requires "followers." >Of course no one is going to change "the ancient wisdom" - and it doesn't >change. But if *it* isn't changing, and a third of the membership has bolted >... well, what *has* changed? The "membership" has changed - people are evolving. As humanity evolves, organizations are less needed; humanity itself becomes the organization. Perhaps the TS has done what it is supposed to do - now it needs to let go and let the seeds grow. The students may have surpassed the "teachers" and that is always a good thing. Maybe, JRC, just maybe, the death of the TS is something to be celebrated. "Faith" in the Ancient Wisdom requires trust. As you know, the Ancient Wisdom itself speaks of "cycles" - ebb and flow. Even if the TS disappeared off the planet tomorrow, the Ancient Wisdom would simply find other avenues of expression. I admire your dedication to and Love of Theosophy and it is people like you who will be used for Its expression with or without the TS. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:45:29 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Fancy dancin' JRC asks: >BTW, hi Kym! Howzit goin'? Haven't seen your name for quite some time ... >How goes the school work? Hmmm. Well, in four months I shall have a piece of paper that will declare me as having a BA in Philosophy. Scary. Just yesterday someone asked, "What about this Plato and Forms business?" I replied, "Plato? Who's Plato?" Ok, I'm a pathological liar, but, honestly, I sure feel like I'm supposed to know. . .well. . .more than I know. 'Course, that could be a lie, too. Life. Who knew? Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 05:14:58 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: September 17, 1999 Sept 18th Dear JRC: I'm with you lets use the group for something practical. Where to begin? What basics do we know? How are those to be used in daily life? I came across this recently: "Masters never cease working, but they cease at times from such public efforts as were made at the establishment of the T S; before that They were working with individuals." This is what one of Them wrote to Mr. Sinnett. Would this not imply that they continue to work with individuals ? If so, then they work with all those who have the good of humanity at heart, whether they are in or out of the TS. One cannot take the "tool" for the Workman. It may well be that the public effort, and the recorded teachings of the Masters, were put forth to find willing, clear-eyed and noble-hearted men and women, able to see their true destiny and anxious to serve humanity. Theosophy can be used selfishly as well as in the right way. The good comes from the fact that Thosophic ideas pave the way for those who are as yet not clear-eyed. So even those who selfishly use Theosophical ideas unconsciously help by keeping those ideas before the world. Theosophy IS, and even a mistaken idea of it may lead to a correct understanding. Let us keep to the correct understanding and refrain from condemnation, and success must come in some measure. If, as individuals, we make ourselves ready and fit we will be used as occasion and fitness permit. We have to see that Theosophy deals with MINDS and not PERSONALITIES. The powerful Soul within,. being conformed to the MIND, reacts upon the whole of nature around us. If we could all look at the world of ideas in that way, we would learn more, gain more discrimination, and be more useful to others, so meriting the Masters attention, and guiding influence. It is Karma all of it. As students and as appliers of Theosophical principles, we all ought to realize this and so gain an advantage. The right start is everything. If this is gained and held, that all that one does carried him and others in the right direction. In this Work, natures are intensified, good and bad qualities always come up to the surface for us to attend to. The :"cleaning-up" process that we are able to do is always gradual. Each of us must do his own work when that seems to be needed. The barriers to help from Masters are in ourselves, and nowhere else. Either pure and undefiled Theosophy is the most real thing in the world, or we are all wasting our time and effort. If we are able to conceive its seriousness its real existence, we should never cease trying to understand and apply what has been recorded by Masters' Messenger [ HPB ] for our guidance and instruction. What is the distinction between Theosophy and anything else? In Fundamental Principles, would you not say ? Nothing else affords an all-inclusive view of existence. all kinds of sincere efforts help. All kinds of systems contain some truth. But they all fall short because they exclude or ignore some part of nature. Theosophy does not, as anyone knows who has really and sincerely read through ISIS UNVEILED and the KEY TO THEOSOPHY. The SECRET DOCTRINE gives us a Dhyani's eye-view of the scope of all Evolution -- from the dawn of manifestation as an IDEA, to its close as the summation of spiritual development -- for a vast mass of intelligent beings -- ourselves. What is practical in this in application. One fact. KARMA stands out as the great any eternal law that has propelled everything into being. Every element of the vast diversity of life that we know or can think of is involved cooperatively in this. Nothing is ever totally isolated. Every least atom of living substance is an immortal entity that is striving to realize its own inherent spiritual nature. As humans we represent in the world (and Universe) those immortal pilgrims -- developed "life-atoms" -- Monads that are through the process of ratiocinating able to envisage the whole scheme and with that as our asset we can imagine and shape our future. Gods among a host of gods-- we ever shape our future destiny. Slow or fast, hindering or assisting, we always go on. Our personal nature, memories of family upbringing, education, our culture, all conspire to limit our views of this fact. But Theosophy reveals it to us as a validity that we can prove. Making use o it is our task. Nothing of this is exterior to us. It is all interior "Look inward, Thou art Buddha." exhorts the VOICE OF THE SILENCE. AS 7-principled beings we share in the ABSOLUTE -- it is at our core. To KNOW it is our destiny. Do we accelerate this, or do we deny and delay it ? We can only use our opportunities and knowledge to the best possible advantage and continue to do so, if we would not fall short of the "Law of Laws--Compassion absolute." We should also consider the vast scope of work in the universe by well-intentioned minds -- what has been done truly is of lasting advantage to many; and, there are others yet unborn, yet to come for whom the record of our devotion or indifference serves as an example. The real point at issue is THE DIVINE NATURE IN MAN.. The real basis for our work is to impress this one chief IDEA on the mind of those who come. A right philosophy is desperately needed by the world. Without this strength and special faculties are useless because they can be misapplied. Theosophy is not merely words, it is LIFE. And this includes all living things and all the many planes of living. To have Brotherhood among the many, it is first necessary to have brotherhood among the few, and the basis of brotherhood is the divinity inherent in men. All true impressions come from within. They come from the Atman. The Higher Self. It is WITHIN, not without. Everywhere it is one and the same for all. Nature works in an orderly fashion so that the interaction of many factors sustains the life of one and each. This can be easily demonstrated as a fact. We call this in general, the LAWS OF NATURE. Science studies these in their minute effects. Their CAUSES are still to be discovered by our Science that insists on limiting itself to effects on the physical plane; and hence, sees nothing of the causes that work from the more subtle -- the inner planes of Nature. Nature works by Law. Man works by Will. If we reflect for a moment we will see that our Will controls all that we do. We can cause the Mind to change directions, without in any way losing the Power to Perceive. The spirit in Man is the PERCEIVER, the WILLER. One of the proofs of this fact is that we know perfectly well that we have the unlimited power to learn anything we set our minds to discovering. Of course this is limited by other factors, but the aim is not limited and can be sustained. To sum up all this let us view again the work of Theosophy in the world as the work of, and for the masters of Wisdom. In this there is no cause for any personal rivalry. Our chief work is to let the true light of such wisdom as we have acquired be shed on all those who approach us -- as quickly and as widely as possible. I hope these few reflections will be of use. Best wishes, Dallas Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D - At 05:36 AM 09/17/1999 -0600, you wrote: >Hey y'all! > >Just wondering if anyone's in the mood for a discussion of practical >Theosophy ... > >Anyone the feels like it ... > >1. What's the most interesting spiritual topic you've studied in the last >year? Most interesting book you've read? > >2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? The most successful? > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:28:29 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Inspired by Kym (again) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BF022D.83949580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I shall go out and have a bumper sticker made today (well, Monday) = saying: "I am a nameless faceless bland person" ..... and people will sytart asking who I really am! Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BF022D.83949580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I shall go out and have a bumper sticker made today (well, Monday)=20 saying:
 
"I am a nameless faceless bland person"
 
..... and people will sytart asking who I really am!
 
Alan :0)
 
Alan@ambain.softnet.co.ukhttp://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BF022D.83949580-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:45:18 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Atom Splitting and Truth ----- Original Message ----- > From: M K Ramadoss > Date: Saturday, September 18, 1999 5:36 AM > Subject: Atom Splitting and Truth (snipped) Dear Doss, Thanks for the post. Note that HPB spoke in terms of *occultism* and NOT *theosophy*! Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ MKR wrote: I happened to come across a very interesting passage in the Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge being the discussions on the Stanzas of the First Volume of Secret Doctrine. This contains the replies that HPB gave to questions posed to her. [highlighting is mine] The above is followed by an interesting question and answer. Q: Then all substances on the physical plane are really so many correlations or combinations of these root elements, and ultimately of the one element? A: Most assuredly. *In occultism it is always best to proceed from universals to particulars*. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:44:22 -0700 From: "W. Dallas TenBroeck" Subject: RE: theos-l digest: September 18, 1999 sEPT 19TH Dear MKR: Thanks that is very useful to remember concerning the knowledge that HPB and the Masters showed. If that were adequate proof that they knew as much or more than academicians, then Students of Theosophy would be encouraged to pursue their studies with greater confidence and diligence. How many instances can be brought forward to demonstrate that Theosophy is a wisdom from our combined experience in the past, and was recorded by the Masters for us to use ? It also points to the difference between the "eye" and the "heart" doctrines, or those things that are based on faith (and no adequate proof) and the rest, which are based on KNOWLEDGE and adequate proof that is both universal and eternal. Best wishes, Dal Dallas dalval@nwc.net=A0 -----Original Message----- > Subject: Atom Splitting and Truth > From: M K Ramadoss > Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 23:36:34 -0500 > X-Message-Number: 1 I happened to come across a very interesting passage in the Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge being the discussions on the Stanzas of the First Volume of Secret Doctrine. This contains the replies that HPB gave to questions posed to her. In pp. 57, she states "Therefore, water is an element, if we choose to call it so, *on* *this* *plane* only. In the same way, oxygen and hydrogen in their turn can be split up into other more subtle elements, all being differentiations on one element or universal essence."=3D20 [highlighting is mine] Looking back 110 years later, how far reaching is the concept of splitting oxygen or hydrogen is =3D96 a concept that was discussed as a very elementary one.=3D20 Here was a woman, who was not a scholar or scientist or a Ph.D., who claimed that all that she has written is from the knowledge that the Adepts have and she was just a scribe and many things she does not understand even though she wrote them. =3D20 The above is followed by an interesting question and answer. Q: Then all substances on the physical plane are really so many correlations or combinations of these root elements, and ultimately of the one element? A: Most assuredly. *In occultism it is always best to proceed from universals to particulars*. Obviously, the above is the key to understand many concepts that are presented in the SD. While many may give up study of SD saying that it is difficult, the difficulty may be somewhat lessened if we keep the above principle in mind. There is another question and answer which should make us all think. Q: Apparently, then, the whole basis of occultism lies in this, that there is latent within every man a power which can give him true knowledge, a power of perception of truth, which enables him to deal first hand with universals if he will be strictly logical and face the facts. Thus we can proceed from universals to particulars by the innate spiritual forces which is in every man. A: Quite so; this power is inherent in all, but paralyzed by our methods of education, and especially by the Aristotelian and Baconian methods. Hypothesis now reigns triumphant. Again I am astounded how simply and directly HPB has explained the situation. In one of the Mahatma Letters, there is a mention that you need come into Their world. I suppose it is an allusion to the above. Also, Krishnamurti was for 60 years was stating that you can get it immediately, here and now and not step by step in a far distant future life. He was perhaps talking about getting out of the paralysis HPB states above. Something to think about. Mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 15:15:33 EDT From: JMahnich@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 18, 1999 Dal wrote : >Thanks that is very useful to remember concerning the knowledge that >HPB and the Masters showed. >If that were adequate proof that they knew as much or more than >academicians, then Students of Theosophy would be encouraged to pursue >their studies with greater confidence and diligence. >How many instances can be brought forward to demonstrate that >Theosophy is a wisdom from our combined experience in the past, and >was recorded by the Masters for us to use ? It just wake me up to communicate again on this platform. Looking at wha= t=20 is flying on this network (fight for mind-mastering, who is right, who is=20 wrong, what has happened or supposed to happen long time ago,...) I feel thi= s=20 communication network could be of such a great tool to communicate and=20 exchange ideas and researches linked to the "theosophical goals" as defined=20 early on (basic theosophic goals n=B0 2 and 3). Looking at the tremendous progress made during the last 30 years in=20 sciences like fundamental physics, cosmology, particles physics and so on,=20 one can be but astounded by so many ideas which are opening new ways of=20 thinking / reasoning about the nature of things ,and these new concepts woul= d=20 need to be analyzed and compared somehow with what ancestral culture told us=20 , specially because many new idea are promising one, the scientific communit= y=20 having since long abandonned the idea of detaining the truth. I hope this network could welcome such discussions / studies about basic=20 nature of the universe, challenging the latest theories like symmetries=20 breaking, m-theory, standard model and the like. Jacques Mahnich JMahnich@aol.com From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 15:15:35 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Fancy dancin' In a message dated 9/18/99 5:46:45 AM Central Daylight Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > "What about this Plato and Forms business?" I replied, "Plato? Who's Plato?" > Oh, he is that stuff that you can make into different forms like a man form, a Greek form, a philosopher form, bearded form.... Course, you need a demiurgic Plato-factory. But enough! I have to get back to reading Dr. Seuss' Silence of the Hams. It is a story where Sam I am's little friend, Hannibal, keeps trying to force novel foodstuffs onto him and eventually turns the tables on Sam I am. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:38:28 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: forced out? It isn't? It wouldn't be strange to split the national section into multiple geogrpahical areas (East Canada, West Canada), but it does seem strange to have two sections covering the same geographical area. Do you know any ways such a situation might be anything but confusing (this is a real question)? Bart Lidofsky M K Ramadoss wrote: > Are you saying it is strange to have two national sections? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:41:45 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: forced out? It could certainly be better (as has been pointed out, it could be better everywhere). One thing that has been rather successful is decentralization; for example, while the New York Lodge is keeping a stable membership, there are a number of members of the New York Lodge who have started local study groups, all of whom are doing quite well (and one, in Red Bank, New Jersey, has become a Lodge in its own right). Bart Lidofsky M K Ramadoss wrote: > > At 08:12 PM 09/16/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > >In the meantime, the Northeast Federation is attempting to revive a > >TSA presence in MA. > > I thought TSA had a powerful presence in MA with a Board Member living in MA. > > Is it now on life support or dead? > > Hope the Federation succeeds. Look forward to hearing updates. > > mkr > > --- > You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: BARTL@SPRYNET.COM > List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:47:24 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: forced out? Sorry, Doss, but I didn't see the original message, so I will reply to the quote, as well. M K Ramadoss wrote: > At 08:19 PM 09/16/1999 -0600, JRC wrote: > They *won* Bart. The beat all their opponents, spun the story well, and got > their control. Don't try now to claim that they don't have it. But beware of > centralized control. You may agree with the current lot in power, Not entirely; I personally think that the E.S. lost it's steam when Annie Besant died, and find the "unofficial" organizations, like the LCC and the co-Mason's, a little too official for my taste. (Every now and then when an LCC'er complains about the neo-pagan movement, I say, "Yeah, all they want to do is wear funny costumes and burn candles and incense while performing their ceremonies!") However, I am not quite as pessimistic about what happens if a new group gets into power; it would require a major change in both national and international to change the TS THAT much, and I believe (naively in JRC's opinion, apparently) that the courts will protect Lodges acting in good faith (note that whatever else you can say about the Boston Lodge, they did NOT act in good faith, rather, they took a "we'll do whatever we want to do, screw you!" attitude). > Theosphy goes in a direction *they* choose. And the centralized power you > seem to find so positive now could easily be wielded in other directions - > and against you and your Lodge. I do not support centralized power; I state that the new by-laws do not do this as much as you (JRC) claim they do. I accept that there is a disagreement here, please do the same. > group of radical Hindus (who the hell *would* try to take over a > Theosophical branch?) to sieze Branch assets ... it would now take a much Any group seeing that currently, the value of the property compared to the membership of the Society is quite out of balance, who wants to cash in. A special bonus would be if the existence of the Theosophical Society is anathema to that group. I can think of several right-wing so-called "Christian" groups that might try that trick. --- Now for Doss' part. > In the early days, when there was a problem in London Lodge, one of the Founders mentioned that the reason for success of TS was decentralization, not central control. So centralization is sync with shrinking of the TS. Of late I know of some members who are not in a mood to give any large funds to lodges specifically because of this. They are interested in the funds use locally and with local control nor remote control. Which can, of course, be used in a court case. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:07:42 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Interested? JRC wrote: > > Hey y'all! > > Just wondering if anyone's in the mood for a discussion of practical > Theosophy ... Excellent idea; much more interesting than politics, in my opinion.... > 1. What's the most interesting spiritual topic you've studied in the last > year? Most interesting book you've read? I have been researching the connection between the neo-pagan movement and Theosophy. I have found that the "neo" in "neo"-pagan is almost entirely derived from Theosophy, and the "pagan" part seems to be just window dressing from a past that never existed. Noteable in the books I have read has been Silver Ravenwolf's TEEN WITCH, which is aimed towards teenagers who have seen movies like THE CRAFT and television shows like CHARMED, and want to become witches; this teaches them what the "Wiccan" religion is really about, and has a very healthy dose of Theosophical thinking. I have given talks on Theosophy in neo-pagan conventions, and find a lot of interested ears. > 2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? The most successful? Successful is easy; I got my company to donate old computers to a group that rehabilitates computers and teaches the disadvantaged how to use computers and donates computers and Internet services to not-for-profit organizations. The most interesting? Hard to say. I'll have to get back on that one. Thanks again for an interesting topic; I'm looking forward to what others have to say. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:23:45 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar Hi all, > This guy who heads the Ingram Micro When he was at AT&T, he was known as Juice because he would invite people to join him at his office not for cup of coffee but a glass of juice - vegetable or fruit -- and he had ample supply at hand at all times. > ... > I think here is a man who understood what is going on and was able to break the traditional thinking and setup. It also reminds me of Krishnamurti who always when discussing anything with anyone or a group will say let us discuss together as friends -- an indication of meeting and acting on the "level' -- as equals. Does not these things display practice of Brotherhood/Sistehood/Siblinghood -- the first object of TS? > > May be some of these instances give us hints of the way things will be done in the next millenium. The Victorian thinking is dead.> Funny thing is, when you study the way HPB did her work: she hardly gave any lectures (except in the New York-days), but her house was always open to stray visitors to discuss things with her, and those people were certainly not only her admirers. Every time Radha Burnier, Mary Anderson and Kim Dieu do not turn up for the group discussions they organize for the rest of us, I am more or less vaguely disappointed. I always ask myself whether there is some difficult philosophy behind it, or wether they just feel *too good* for it. Or do they just think that they will not learn anything and that therefore there is no reason to go? Which might stop them from lecturing as easily... To be fair: I have been in a discussiongroup with Mary once and in a discussion-week with Kim once too. Katinka And yes Alan, obviously we are in this for theosophy. Just for the record... (and for those reading but not responding officials on this list ;-) ) NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:34:32 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality Kym wrote, > Nor do I agree that approaching Theosophy with a "religious fervor" (as Microsoft's employees do) is a wise philosophy. Too much committment to something can make one blind and unintentionally cruel. One walks a fine line between "religious fervor" and self-righteousness. Microsoft may have succeeded in securing material wealth, pushing others out of business, and steering people like sheep in the computer field, but they would make lousy spiritual workers. Spiritual "success" cannot necessarily be counted in numbers - for if 90% of the whole world thinks "wrongly" about issues of Compassion and spirituality, it cannot be hailed as a "success." Microsoft's philosophy is good for Microsoft; but not necessarily for Apple. It is the same with Theosophy.> Certainly, but I do want a TS where a person who does not believe in reincarnation will feel as welkom as one who does, and to achieve that, we need an open and therefore democratic environment where criticism is as possible and welkom as it is on this (and other) lists. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:44:38 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality Dear FS, > I don't see what a discussion like this can give to us. > FS The reason we discuss this, is that we want the TS to work the best way it can for the good of humanity. I assume that our thoughts have some worth and that sharing these thoughts will teach us better how to think and how to understand theosophy and how to practice theosophy. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 06:20:37 EDT From: Franksmz@aol.com Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality Yes i understand this but, it's a wrong way. Why would'nt we speak about the prize of vegetables? It's very interecting to make all beings being happy is'nt it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:10:39 +1200 From: Murray Stentiford Subject: Re: Interested? JRC wrote >Just wondering if anyone's in the mood for a discussion of practical >Theosophy ... > >Anyone the feels like it ... > >1. What's the most interesting spiritual topic you've studied in the last >year? Most interesting book you've read? > >2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? The most successful? Leading a meditation group with a mixture of beginners and more experienced. Big learning experience for all, including the leader. Seeing people recognise that something as deceptively simple as relaxation has a spiritual possibility that can deepen to a whole-being encounter with the one Life. Seeing a sense of group-ship :) develop during the year and a half it's been going, and feeling the meditations getting more powerfully in sync as people tune to each other. The many laughs during the meetings, the sense of light and well-being afterwards. A few hints there - more laughter and light would go down well in more of our meetings, methinks. Murray From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:54:48 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: apostles, TS,problems Christine wrote: > Even Jesus' > apostles had problems - just look at what happened with Judas. Since apostles are *only* students, it is obvious that problesms will come up. How else are we going to learn? No pain, no gain... Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:05:54 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: forced out? > That it may be now slightly more difficult for a > group of radical Hindus (who the hell *would* try to take over a > Theosophical branch?) Well, since the TS has money and people, the TS is for some organisations an atractive thing to take over. In holland recently one of our most active groups has been the subject of such an attempt. There was a whole mess, the National chair was involved and the lodge was saved: it stayed its own self, instead of becoming a pupit of a racist club which mascerades as a theosophical-like organisation. This may sound like bull, but though I do not agree with all that Amsterdam does, our current chair there is certainly not inclined to lying, in my experience. Katinka (Holland) NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:11:06 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: forced out? MKR wrote: > In the early days, when there was a problem in London Lodge, one of the > Founders mentioned that the reason for success of TS was > decentralization, not central control. So centralization is sync with > shrinking of the TS. Of late I know of some members who are not in a mood > to give any large funds to lodges specifically because of this. They are > interested in the funds use locally and with local control nor remote > control. Well, the advantage is that national sections help small lodges (like mine), but I do suppose they do not need absolute control for that. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:13:52 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Interested? JRC wrote: > Just wondering if anyone's in the mood for a discussion of practical > Theosophy ... > 1. What's the most interesting spiritual topic you've studied in the last > year? Most interesting book you've read? I've been studying chelaship and Mahatma's from the Collected Writings, by HPB, and it has been a relevation of details on practical theosophy and the implications on life. > 2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? > The most successful? I tutor (math and chemistry), but since they pay me for it, I am not sure it is *theosophical* work. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:21:51 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: RE: theos-l digest: September 16, 1999 REVOCATION -- EXCOMMUNICATION etc. How are we going to understand the teachings if we do not discuss them? How are we going to learn from each other if we do not every once in a while disagree? > Are we degraded to the level of the common churches that we fight over > assets and the right interpretation of the teachings? It seems to me that so far, on this list, we agree more or less on the general principles, so fighting is not a description of the discussion that I would agree with. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:34:38 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Grave wax Kym wrote, > >But tell, me, what are his "intentions" in funding a > >nearly 20 billion dollar charitable trust? > I haven't a clue what is in Bill Gates' heart and soul. I've no idea why > he has started a trust. Tax purposes? Could be. Altruism? Could be. > Doesn't matter as long as it helps just one person. Yes, I agree with that, but if Bill's spiritual growth is what we are worrying about, than his motive suddenly matters heaps. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:41:13 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: forced out? Bart Lidofsky wrote: > It isn't? It wouldn't be strange to split the national section into > multiple geogrpahical areas (East Canada, West Canada), but it does seem > strange to have two sections covering the same geographical area. Do you > know any ways such a situation might be anything but confusing (this is > a real question)? The logical reason for doing so, would be that the two sections have a very different approach to the theosophical doctrines and or a very different approach to the three objects of the TS. The first was the reason that London used to have two TS-branches, the second reason was probably the reason in Canada...? As long as every one is clear that to work in different directions does not automatically mean that one or the other is working *against* theosophy, then there is no confusion, I should think. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:48:20 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: forced out? ES, LCC, co-mason's Hi Bart, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Not entirely; I personally think that the E.S. lost it's steam when Annie Besant died, and find the "unofficial" organizations, like the LCC and the co-Mason's, a little too official for my taste. (Every now and then when an LCC'er complains about the neo-pagan movement, I say, "Yeah, all they want to do is wear funny costumes and burn candles and incense while performing their ceremonies!")> The ES lost steam after Annie Besant died? I thought she changed the TS thoroughly first? That is where the problem is, as far as I am concerned. The LCC and the co-Mason's do not seem like official organisations to me, here in Holland, I do not know about other countries. NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:52:27 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Interested? Hi Bart, > I have been researching the connection between the neo-pagan movement > and Theosophy. I have found that the "neo" in "neo"-pagan is almost > entirely derived from Theosophy, and the "pagan" part seems to be just > window dressing from a past that never existed. Noteable in the books I > have read has been Silver Ravenwolf's TEEN WITCH, which is aimed towards > teenagers who have seen movies like THE CRAFT and television shows like > CHARMED, and want to become witches; this teaches them what the "Wiccan" > religion is really about, and has a very healthy dose of Theosophical > thinking. I have given talks on Theosophy in neo-pagan conventions, and > find a lot of interested ears. If neo-pagan is the same as wicca, then the dutch representative of that movement which is most successfull, was in fact a theosophist. He wrote under an alias and considered his work to be *theosophical*. NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:04:07 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: forced out? If multiple sections serves the needs of the membership, it should be ok. mkr At 09:38 PM 09/19/1999 -0400, you wrote: > It isn't? It wouldn't be strange to split the national section into >multiple geogrpahical areas (East Canada, West Canada), but it does seem >strange to have two sections covering the same geographical area. Do you >know any ways such a situation might be anything but confusing (this is >a real question)? > > Bart Lidofsky > >M K Ramadoss wrote: >> Are you saying it is strange to have two national sections? > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:41:02 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Grave wax >Kym wrote, >> >But tell, me, what are his "intentions" in funding a >> >nearly 20 billion dollar charitable trust? > >> I haven't a clue what is in Bill Gates' heart and soul. I've no idea why >> he has started a trust. Tax purposes? Could be. Altruism? Could be. >> Doesn't matter as long as it helps just one person. >Yes, I agree with that, but if Bill's spiritual growth is >what we are worrying about, than his motive suddenly >matters heaps. Yes. As an aside, I've heard from more than one person that knows him that he actually is quite genuine in his motives. He isn't particularly religious, but apparently does feel some sort of duty or compulsion to *do* things with the enormous amount of money he has. And more than that, he is apparently intent on doing it with wisdom ... understanding that a large infusion of money can cause as much confusion and corruption as benefit (just as it can in personal lives - its amazing how many lottery winners wind up with their lives destroyed by the money ... its a very powerful energy) ... he & his foundation are being exceedingly careful to work within existing frameworks in the fields where the money is going. Studying groups and non-profits it goes to. Not trying to re-invent the wheel and control it all himself, but rather seeking individuals and groups that are solid, genuinely committed, and effective, and lacking (as many non-profits do) but small amounts of money to vastly increase the amount of good they can do. He put his father in charge of the main foundation, but intends, after he retires, to spend a considerable amount of time running it himself. He intends it to be his *profession* in the latter half of his life. BTW - just heard he made another donation - at a time when in the US the Republicans have decided that affirmative action is a "mistake", that apparently all racial problems of the past have been solved, and laws that *were* providing a chance at higher education for a good number of minority students are being kicked off the books ... Gates just donated 1 billion to help fund minority education in the states ... again using the existing non-profit network (the current Chair of the United Negro College Fund will be managing the funds ...). From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:52:20 EDT From: Franksmz@aol.com Subject: Re: Grave wax Great!!! again! from my point of view you're right: speak about microsoft and -why not- wall street and please be the new humanity that make us sucking chinese gov. and and give us genetical modified food. You are the best. And we, theosophist, fuck you all ! Look it like a way of compassion. Your list is so deep. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:08:18 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Grave wax Well, since you apparently don't approve, perhaps you'd like to suggest a topic of conversation? Or do you just want to curse at me (-:)? -----Original Message----- > From: Franksmz@aol.com > Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 10:52 AM > Subject: Re: Grave wax >Great!!! again! from my point of view you're right: speak about microsoft and >-why not- wall street and please be the new humanity that make us sucking >chinese gov. and and give us genetical modified food. >You are the best. >And we, theosophist, fuck you all ! >Look it like a way of compassion. >Your list is so deep. > >--- >You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: jrc@texas.net >List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-530Y@list.vnet.net > > From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:53:33 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: forced out? ES, LCC, co-mason's It is the un-official inter-linking that is troublesom. There is also the possibility of enforcing conformity. If these were so important, did not the Founders and HPB know of it. Sure they were not short sighted!! mkr At 02:48 PM 09/20/1999 +0200, you wrote: >Hi Bart, >Bart Lidofsky wrote: > >> Not entirely; I personally think that the E.S. lost it's >steam when Annie Besant died, and find the "unofficial" >organizations, like the LCC and the co-Mason's, a little >too official for my taste. (Every now and then when an >LCC'er complains about the neo-pagan movement, I say, "Yeah, >all they want to do is wear funny costumes and burn candles >and incense while performing their ceremonies!")> >The ES lost steam after Annie Besant died? I thought she >changed the TS thoroughly first? That is where the problem >is, as far as I am concerned. >The LCC and the co-Mason's do not seem like official >organisations to me, here in Holland, I do not know about >other countries. >---------------------- >NHL Leeuwarden >hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:11:40 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: forced out? ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 3:47 AM > Subject: Re: forced out? > > (Every now and > then when an LCC'er complains about the neo-pagan movement, I say, > "Yeah, all they want to do is wear funny costumes and burn candles and > incense while performing their ceremonies!") ROFIH (Rolls on floor in hysterics) Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:30:30 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Grave wax ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: Theosophy Study List > Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 4:52 PM > Subject: Re: Grave wax > Your list is so deep. > But how deep is so? Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:27:33 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: forced out? ES, LCC, co-mason's ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Monday, September 20, 1999 1:48 PM > Subject: Re: forced out? ES, LCC, co-mason's > The LCC and the co-Mason's do not seem like official > organisations to me, here in Holland, I do not know about > other countries. Here in Britain the LCC and the Co-Masonic Order are quite separate organisations, and have been for many years. There are quite a number of TS members in the LCC, but much fewer within the Co-Masons (which I belonged to for a time). I have met a number of LCC clergy in your country, and they were rarely interested in Theosophy in a TS sense. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:18:08 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality Katinka wrote: > I do want a TS where a person who does not > believe in reincarnation will feel as welkom as one who > does, and to achieve that, we need an open and therefore > democratic environment where criticism is as possible and > welkom as it is on this (and other) lists. > So do I. I also want to win the lottery. (Though the lottery offers better odds) Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:11:20 -0700 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: is it theosophical if you get paid money? Katinka: [responding to JRC] > > 2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? > I tutor (math and chemistry), but since they pay me for it, > I am not sure it is *theosophical* work. I'd say that it's "theosophical" or not based upon *how* you do it, on how you experience it, on what you make happen under the circumstances. If you care about the people you're tutoring, and you care about what you're doing, and you bring a clear mind, open heart, and attentive spirit to the tutoring work, the fact that you make money for it is irrelevant. An experience of the higher qualities of life, and a brightening of the world through our actions, is not limited to our free time, when we're not at work or tied up in our routine duties if life. In fact, it's in living out the daily routines with *sparkle* that we can achieve our highest spiritual practice. The higher schools of Buddhism also teach this: than our practice and our service can be in the little everyday things that we do -- whether it's "at work" or "at home" -- and we don't need to limit spiritual practices to monastic, seclusive, meditative practices, useful as they may be. When there's mention of "not charging money for the spiritual," it refers to not using the pretense to spiritual activities in order to con people out of their money, fooling people into parting with their money for false promises of spiritual attainment, or perhaps in the selling of "occult secrets". The sharing of one's higher nature is free of expectations, without wanting anything in return, out of the pure love of living it out. It's a matter of awareness, of consciousness, of motivation, of approach to an experience. The involvement of money -- one way or the other -- is not a deciding factor, although the best interest of others is paramount, and something cannot be truly good when others are being exploited or taken advantage of. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:40:50 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: is it theosophical if you get paid money? > [responding to JRC] > > > > 2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? > > > I tutor (math and chemistry), but since they pay me for it, > > I am not sure it is *theosophical* work. > > I'd say that it's "theosophical" or not based upon *how* > you do it, on how you experience it, on what you make happen > under the circumstances. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes (in my opinion anyway). To draw a line between what we do for "gain" and what we do for "spirituality" really is, in some ways, a sign of a not yet integrated humanity. I think spirituality is almost entirely a matter of energy radiation, of intent. It was said (in some theosophical book I think) that the Buddha's powerful aura extended three miles out from his body ... that people were immensely enriched and elevated at numerous levels if they even walked through it - even if they were never actually close enough to see him, or know such a being was in the neighborhood. Would it make a single bit of difference whether he was doing something "spiritual" like meditating, as opposed to farming, or shoeing horses for a bit of coin? Heck no, its irrelevant to the issue. If it is wrong to think (as everyone from Christian to Buddhist theologians propose) that material wealth can somehow affect one's spiritual condition, can assure one a place in "heaven", so I think it equally wrong to believe that the mere condition of *having* wealth is some sign of spiritual disqualification, or that because one earns money for a service its not "theosophical" work. Buddha did spend some time as a renunciant ... possessing only a beggars bowl, eating only a bit of rice people gave him ... but he still needed to *eat* to accomplish the purpose of that life on earth. That is, since *he* didn't grow it, *someone* had to labor in a hot, damp field to grow those grains of rice. Its another one of those old, fractured models that really has to go .... the notion that the "many" would somehow labor (and it is implied that they labor only for their own self-interest), while the few takes various vows, remain apart and detached from commerce, take vows of "poverty", and busy themselves with "spiritual service". Its something close to the feudal model of government applied to the spiritual realm .... a very few possessing the majority of the "spirituality", while the many suffer from a noticable lack of it. Balderdash. What would a society look like if it was almost *entirely* spiritualized? Food would still need to be grown. Houses built. A fully spiritualized nation would *HAVE* no vows, no people renouncing the world for the "spiritual", but rather people would need to be *integrating* it. And the difference would be *immense*. What if *everyone* doing their job, to earn their living, still did it, but did it with the intention that what they were doing *was* their spiritual service? A terrible earthquake hit Turkey not too long ago. Many died ... and as the news came out of that horrid scene, it became clear that many *more* died than would have had to ... that for close to a decade corrupt government officials and builders had built sub-standard housing in places they knew to be earthquake prone. That building codes had been winked at, payoffs made, enormous corners cut. Ah but for a few government officials to be there that looked at their positions as spiritual duty - that would have said *NO*, this is unacceptable, I will *not* take a bribe, and I will *not* look the other way. Ah, but for a few builders that might have said "I'll make less money this year than my competitors, but I'll still make a good living, and my customers' roofs will *not* collaps on their heads ...". No profession, I think, cannot be completely transformed by attitude. Tutoring mathematics? *Mathematics*? Perhaps the single most universal language? The art that is found as a branch in virtually every esoteric tradition that has ever been known on the planet? The art that develops and stabilizes the lower manas in preparation for what may be built on top of it? The art that at its higher levels is second only to (and indeed physiologically closely related to) music in its ability to induce states of being that form almost perfect interfaces for direct perception of interior worlds? Goodness Katrina, it makes not the slightest bit of difference whether you earn money doing it ... if you are helping young minds grasp mathematics, you are engaged in what is really an ancient and universal teaching tradition, teaching an art that for most of human history was reserved for the few, that in many cultures was considered "occult", and that may have enormous effects on your pupils long after you're enjoying devachan. I do *not* think the ultimate vision of a spiritualized humanity is a state in which we *all* voluntarily wander around in rags with beggar's bowls, but indeed, a society in which we've moved beyond that and *renounced renunciation*. In which the questions "what was the latest spiritual service you rendered" and "what did you do at work today darling" elicit an identical response. But I ramble. And I have to get up and go to work in the morning (-:) .... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:53:39 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: A possibility? Alan responds to Frank: >> Your list is so deep. >> >But how deep is so? Alan, Alan, Alan, such a thorn you are! You slay me, man. Did you know, that in America, repacking old eggs is legal? I just heard this on the news only a minute ago. Now, to connect this new info with Theosophy: Some historians say that the "Burning Times" (persecution of women under the label of 'witch') was due to tainted grain. Well, perhaps tainted eggs are messing with the grand poobahs of the TS. . .someone should check the TS refrigerator. Now, as far as the TS in England. . .. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:53:33 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar hesse600 wrote: > Funny thing is, when you study the way HPB did her work: > she hardly gave any lectures (except in the New York-days), > but her house was always open to stray visitors to discuss > things with her, and those people were certainly not only > her admirers. Running the risk of giving Doss new ideas, that was a common practice back then. One of the things mailing lists like this do is give us the equivalent of the old "salon". > Every time Radha Burnier, Mary Anderson and Kim Dieu do not > turn up for the group discussions they organize for the > rest of us, I am more or less vaguely disappointed. I > always ask myself whether there is some difficult > philosophy behind it, or wether they just feel *too good* > for it. Or do they just think that they will not learn > anything and that therefore there is no reason to go? Which > might stop them from lecturing as easily... Well, note that in Blavatsky's time, the spiritual and temporal leadership of the Theosophical Society were split (something which I think is vital for any spiritual organization). I figure if the Mahtama's can't find a single person who can handle both duties, how the hell can we? In any case, they are temporal leaders of the TS, not spiritual leaders (although they may interfere in spiritual matters, disregarding the Mahatma's advice to Olcott), and might feel that their presence would actually block the free flow of ideas (would you want to discuss Theosophy to someone who can dissolve your entire national section on a whim?). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:16:34 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality hesse600 wrote: > Certainly, but I do want a TS where a person who does not > believe in reincarnation will feel as welkom as one who > does, and to achieve that, we need an open and therefore > democratic environment where criticism is as possible and > welkom as it is on this (and other) lists. There is criticism, and there are pot shots. I have had a lot of experience here where some people took every thing I said and twisted my every word into something sinister, or drew conclusions that were completely unwarranted to the point where even a number of people on their side of the debate started telling them to lay off. There was a time when, if John Algeo had come on this list and left a message saying, "I'm happy to be participating on this list and look forward to participating in the discussion", several regulars would somehow take this as a sign that John Algeo was going to be spying on them, and going to take actions against sections which disagreed with him. Nobody likes to be in a forum where they are going to receive one unjust attack after another, where anything they say in their defense, up to and including solid evidence that the attacks were completely fabricated, will be used as further evidence against them (it was only because a few people here urging me on, including people on the "other side" of the debate, that I didn't quit in disgust myself, much to the disappointment of some who consider me to be the dupe of the administration). There was one point, for example, when there was a proposed change in the bylaws which would have allowed the American Section to seize and redistribute the property of any Lodge as they saw fit. It was brought up in this list, as evidence to the evil of the administration. I told the board of my Lodge, and then called John Algeo. He had not realized that important language had been removed, and I called barely in time for the language protecting local lodges to be put back. With all the complaining going on here, nobody even thought to complain where it counted. I hope that you can see why TS officials don't participate on these lists. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 08:28:37 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 07:53 AM 09/21/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: >hesse600 wrote: Funny thing is, when you study the way HPB did her work: she hardly gave any lectures (except in the New York-days), but her house was always open to stray visitors to discuss things with her, and those people were certainly not only her admirers.< > Running the risk of giving Doss new ideas, that was a common practice back then. One of the things mailing lists like this do is give us the equivalent of the old "salon". > In addition, you could go to the kitchen and help yourself with a cup of coffee or tea --- all at no cost. No fees, no suggested *donation* for this or that fund.... What a change now in the US. Almost all programs at the national hq there is some fee or donation. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:54:52 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: forced out? ES, LCC, co-mason's Hi Alan, > > The LCC and the co-Mason's do not seem like official organisations to me, here in Holland, I do not know about other countries. > Here in Britain the LCC and the Co-Masonic Order are quite separate organisations, and have been for many years. There are quite a number of TS members in the LCC, but much fewer within the Co-Masons (which I belonged to for a time). > I have met a number of LCC clergy in your country, and they were rarely interested in Theosophy in a TS sense. Yes, that is what is my impression too, they usually (I know of one exception) seem more interested in just doing the service, without having to think about it. Sounds like the carry around candles and wearing a costume, story.... Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:59:04 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality I wrote: > > I do want a TS where a person who does not believe in reincarnation will feel as welkom as one who does, and to achieve that, we need an open and therefore democratic environment where criticism is as possible and welkom as it is on this (and other) lists. Alan wrote: > So do I. > I also want to win the lottery. > (Though the lottery offers better odds) me again: Well, in feeling welkom, I think that the TS is not a uniform whole. In some parts members and non-members with very different idea's feel welkom (some lodges, some meetings about certain subjects) whereas other groups tend to exclude people more or less involuntarily. And before you tell me the first kind doesn't exist: I know of at least three groups here in Europe, mostly in Holland, because I do not know the TS in the rest of Europe, or the world as well. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:00:39 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality I fully agree. When TS was founded, all that was expected was to be in simpathy with the first Object. No belief was expected. Once you start with a belief, your mind gets closed and will not see truth -- whatever that may be -- even if it stares at you. May be over a period of time, a set of beliefs may have settled down in the minds of some members because it is easy to believe something and it does not require any effort. mkr PS: Some of the beliefs advanced in the US, talk about the inner objectives as if the Founders had hidden objectives which were not discovered until 100 years later. >>hesse600 wrote: Certainly, but I do want a TS where a person who does not believe in reincarnation will feel as welkom as one who does, and to achieve that, we need an open and therefore democratic environment where criticism is as possible and welkom as it is on this (and other) lists.<< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:30:57 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality >hesse600 wrote: >> Certainly, but I do want a TS where a person who does not >> believe in reincarnation will feel as welkom as one who >> does, and to achieve that, we need an open and therefore >> democratic environment where criticism is as possible and >> welkom as it is on this (and other) lists. > There is criticism, and there are pot shots. I have had a lot of >experience here where some people took every thing I said and twisted my >every word into something sinister, or drew conclusions that were >completely unwarranted to the point where even a number of people on >their side of the debate started telling them to lay off. This is perception. More than one person feels as though *you* have twisted their words. And the difference between "criticism" and "pot-shots" is highly subjective. It is possible to *use* very polite words and still be taking "pot-shots" ... and you have proven a master at this ... in fact this whole post is full of little "pot-shots". And for every person that thought people went too far in answering your apologies for the administration, there were others that didn't think they went far enough. > There was a time when, if John Algeo had come on this list and left a >message saying, "I'm happy to be participating on this list and look >forward to participating in the discussion", several regulars would >somehow take this as a sign that John Algeo was going to be spying on >them, and going to take actions against sections which disagreed with >him. Nobody likes to be in a forum where they are going to receive one >unjust attack after another, where anything they say in their defense, >up to and including solid evidence that the attacks were completely >fabricated, will be used as further evidence against them (it was only >because a few people here urging me on, including people on the "other >side" of the debate, that I didn't quit in disgust myself, much to the >disappointment of some who consider me to be the dupe of the >administration). Much to the disappointment? Of who, exactly? Care to name a single person that you *know* wanted you to quit? In one paragraph you complain about people "drawing unwarrented conclusions", and in the next you assert that "several regulars" would have taken John Algeo's appearance on the list as a sign he was going to be spying? None of those "several regulars" I know would have made that assertion (especially since they all *know* this list is read at Headquarters already) - indeed, they *BEGGED*, over and over, for *someone* from the administration to appear on the flippin' list, and would have loved nothing better to have engaged them. And your assertion that the*reason* John Algeo didn't appear on this list is *because* he would receive "one unjust attack after another" *is* rubbish, and has been explained before. I remember your first "explanation" was that the administration just didn't have time, and didn't pay attention to the lists. That one proved so ludicrous, provoked widespread disbelief and even cyberlaughter, and was answered by a couple of people who said they personally *knew* that the discussions here were followed exceedingly closely by people at headquarters. So *then* the explanation turned into "well, people would be unjustly mean to the poor innocent well-intentioned leaders". The only problem with *this* explanation is that it didn't fit the facts. A number of those "several people" have been on this list almost from the very beginning. The intense criticism of the leadership was *not* present at the outset. In fact, their good intentions were initially *assumed*. People *assumed* their voices had validity, that their opinions mattered, that their leaders were *responsible to them - the people that elected them*. Fact is, the leadership has *NEVER* appeared on this list ... a list that at times has probably been the single most active theosophical list on the internet. As the Algeo administration gradually took control of the TS, and people on this list starting *talking* to each other, they started hearing about all sorts of things that were very disturbing ... things that were never even mentioned in any of the "official" TS publications. Started seeing a step by step alteration of bylaw after bylaw that served to centralize previously decentralized control. Started seeing publications all being brought under the complete editorial control of one man ... even the American Theosophist (that, when it was split from Quest - was promised to the membership as a "membership forum"). And began witnessing significant declines in membership. Initially people *DID* try to contact HQ with good faith criticisms, suggestions, questions. People on this list *would* have warmly welcomed discussions with their leadership, explanations of changes. And not just this list - I was a member of a Lodge, a very *active* Lodge ... in a very small Montana community (population less than 5,000) we were drawing sometimes as many as forty or fifty people to public presentations, and were one of many Lodges working out entirely new forms of theosophical activity, activity that clearly *did* meet the challenge of making Theosophy applicable to this day and age. I remember our growing concern ... national speakers coming and practically insulting the sophisticated audiences we were cultivating with almost condescendingly simplistic talks, videotape presentations and study materials produced at HQ that actually *literally* put several people to sleep. Suggestions to HQ were ignored. A member wrote an article to HQ, for submission in the American Theosophist (the "member's forum"), politely criticizing several things, and offering well thought out suggestions (this was a woman with a doctorate in education administration ... that both studied theosophy and had very practical experience in running education programs). She was told flat out that nothing critical of the TS would be published. *OVER TIME* it became clear to people both on this list, and in Lodges all over the country, that John Algeo was going to run this organization like he ran classes full of college freshmen. That he was not going to *facilitate* the activities of the very different Lodges and study groups around the country, but was going to pursue solely the activities chosen by him, restrict communication in member publications to content approved by him, alter the bylaws as he saw fit, not even bother to respond to people that weren't "on board", and take the TS in the direction he chose - regardless what effect that had. I don't know exactly why the entire *one-third* of the membership that has left this decade has left, but I *DO* know why *my* Lodge went out of existence: John Algeo. Ultimately, *none* of us had any desire or need to support *HIS* vision, to support an organization that clearly didn't support *us*, or indeed believe it had even the faintest duty to respond to its membership. *I* happen to be a loud mouth, and *articulated* my reasons and displeasure - but the rest of the members ... as it is possible members all over the country did ... just quietly didn't renew their memberships. They were, of course, never *ASKED* why they didn't. *OVER TIME* - as more and more people left, as more and more of some of the most long-time and active theosophists saw their voices marginalized, as repeated, genuine, and very polite *good faith* requests for conversation were ignored - *OVER TIME* the criticism on this list *THE ONLY PLACE WHERE IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE GROWING FRUSTRATION TO SURFACE* became more and more intense. *YOU* Bart, came onto this list *after* this had happened. Did you actually try to discover *WHY* the criticism was so intense? *NO*. You immediately became a defender of the administration. Immediately assumed our motives were suspect, our intentions nasty, and that the poor hard working leadership was being beat upon, and should certainly be excused for not appearing in such a "hostile" environment. Fact is, the current leadership has *NEVER* appeared in *ANY* forum over which they didn't have *complete control*. You have been, and still are, vigorous in your defense without having ever investigated the *causes* for the current antagonistic environment, an environment that came about gradually, and as a direct *result* of the silence or marginalization *many* people felt at the hands of the current leadership - and yet *YOU* have the balls to accuse *others* of leaping to "unwarrented" conclusions, of twisting words ... and in doing so have taken profound "pot-shots" at some extremely committed theosophists. Do you think the critics *WANT* to be negative? To be outsiders? Hell no - every one of them were very active in Theosophical work, many of them expended enormous energy building Lodges, running organizations, researching and publishing. They had become *USED* to leaderships in which their voices *WERE* recognized, acknowledged. Long before this list - in the late 80's - I wrote (for instance) a short piece that raised a couple of criticisms, and warned that I thought we were growing increasingly out of touch with the world around us, that we needed new and creative approaches in the 21st century. Dorothy Abbenhouse, who *personally* didn't agree with most of it, nonetheless *published* it in the AT ... and then published a much longer piece in the next issue that was full of suggestions and possible ideas. It provoked discussion - letters for and against, provoked other people to offer suggestions ... an entire discussion was begun in a number of Lodges concerning the direction the TS needed to go. It was a *vigorous* discussion ... and it took place *in TS publications and Lodges*. People did *not* think that their suggestions should simply be *followed*, but they *did* believe they had the right to be *heard*. Any thought of anything *remotely* resembling that kind of environment is long gone now - but it *IS* what Theosophy was for a good part of this century. Many of the people *YOU* blast for being so critical, for jumping to conclusions, are not people that were newcomers that just wanted to cause trouble - but were people that had for many years supported the TS, had creative thoughts, a willingness to try new things, had poured their time and their money and their hearts into theosophy ... and into a TS they were *USED* to having a voice in. It took far more than a single small event to produce the sort of criticism you see on this list - it took a couple of *YEARS* of suddenly discovering that our experience, our *demonstrably successful* experience in managing and building Lodges, suddenly meant nothing. That if our ideas of Theosophy were *harmonious* with John Algeo's we'd be published and supported, but if they *weren't* in tune with his vision, HQ had no place for our voices, no avenues for our communication, no use for our energies, and in fact felt no responsibility to even acknowledge our existance. > There was one point, for example, when there was a proposed change in >the bylaws which would have allowed the American Section to seize and >redistribute the property of any Lodge as they saw fit. It was brought >up in this list, as evidence to the evil of the administration. I told >the board of my Lodge, and then called John Algeo. He had not realized >that important language had been removed, and I called barely in time >for the language protecting local lodges to be put back. With all the >complaining going on here, nobody even thought to complain where it >counted. AAAAHHHHHH yes - *great* example. In one paragraph you *justify* the fact that HQ utterly ignores people on this list *because* they complain, and in the next charge them with not complaining. Your example is an excellent example of *THE ENVIRONMENT JOHN ALGEO HAS CREATED*. Under any past president I can think of, a *DOZEN* different people I know personally would have immediately called headquarters to bring up the points you mention. But after *YEARS* of being completely ignored, of having doors slammed in our faces, we no longer even bother. We no longer feel as though we'd be listened to, longer feel as though HQ listens to us unless they are practically forced to listen. You've tried this subtle little trick before Bart ... first excusing HQ for not responding to us, then critisizing us for not ... what? NOT GIVING THEM THE CHANCE TO IGNORE US AGAIN? How *MANY* times would you expect us to offer advice to HQ - and half the time not even receive an acknowledgement that the suggestion had been received - before you might see fit to *excuse* us for not *continuing* to do so. How bloody *should* one's head get before one stops beating it against a brick wall. > I hope that you can see why TS officials don't participate on these >lists. Yes ... indeed ... I hope you now see a much more *complete* picture of why they don't - of why they *NEVER* did. People, organizations, governments, that want that sort of *CONTROL* know full well that the single way to achieve it is through controlling *communications*. And this list is, quite simply, unable to be controlled. (Though in fact after it had been successful, HQ *did* attempt to start their own - moderated - discussion list, where content *could* be controlled, but funny thing, it never wound up generating even a fraction of the activity this list has ...). Here are some *FACTS* Bart. John Algeo is the *PRESIDENT*. During the course of his presidency, close to 1/3 of the membership has left. A number of people on this list alone that were long-time, committed theosophists, with *no* prior history of being anything other than active, polite participants, supporters and *co-workers* with several past presidents and administrations, whose first instinct was always to *assume* good intentions on the part of their leaders, and who *did so* with John Algeo, now show signs of being intensely alienated, of being increasingly and loudly negative, of assuming the worst. This may not have happened to *YOU*, because you may personally be in relatively harmonious accord with what he seeks to do. But one of the real tests of leadership is how a leader handles those that think differently. Why don't you for once sit back and ask yourself *WHY* the current environment exists. *HOW* it came about. And *WHO* is really responsible for it. And while you're doing so consider this: *Every one* of those that have expended tremendous energy in what you consider to be unfair and unfounded criticism would *MUCH* rather be turning that energy towards addressing some of the problems facing the TS, building Lodges, publishing research, and exploring new directions and possibilities for theosophical activities - for the most part *did so* under all presidents until this current one, and initially *tried* to under him. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:08:37 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: apostles, TS,problems Check out the roots of the word "apostle". It does NOT mean "student" in any sense. Bart Lidofsky hesse600 wrote: > > Christine wrote: > > Even Jesus' > > apostles had problems - just look at what happened with Judas. > Since apostles are *only* students, it is obvious that > problesms will come up. How else are we going to learn? No > pain, no gain... From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:10:59 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: forced out? ES, LCC, co-mason's hesse600 wrote: > > Hi Bart, > Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Not entirely; I personally think that the E.S. lost it's > steam when Annie Besant died, and find the "unofficial" > organizations, like the LCC and the co-Mason's, a little > The LCC and the co-Mason's do not seem like official > organisations to me, here in Holland, I do not know about > other countries. Note the two quotes. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:13:43 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Interested? hesse600 wrote: > > Hi Bart, > > I have been researching the connection between the neo-pagan movement > > and Theosophy. I have found that the "neo" in "neo"-pagan is almost > > entirely derived from Theosophy, and the "pagan" part seems to be just > > window dressing from a past that never existed. Noteable in the books I > > have read has been Silver Ravenwolf's TEEN WITCH, which is aimed towards > > teenagers who have seen movies like THE CRAFT and television shows like > > CHARMED, and want to become witches; this teaches them what the "Wiccan" > > religion is really about, and has a very healthy dose of Theosophical > > thinking. I have given talks on Theosophy in neo-pagan conventions, and > > find a lot of interested ears. > If neo-pagan is the same as wicca, then the dutch > representative of that movement which is most successfull, > was in fact a theosophist. He wrote under an alias and > considered his work to be *theosophical*. Wicca is a specific religion, and was pretty much the start of the neo-pagan movement, which is far more general in scope (Wicca also has the highest theosophical content). Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:47:08 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: A possibility? > Now, as far as the TS in England. . .. > > > Kym Nobody in their right mind goes *that* far .... John Algeo came once, though .... Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 01:52:33 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: In support of theosophy This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01BF049D.22D31A60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, This is partly in response to the post from JRC replying to Bart, but = never having been part of the TS in the USA, I do not feel altogether = competent to make direct responses to that post. What I would like to share with you all follows: Way back in 1956 - 43 years ago - I began the study Theosophical = teachings a la Adyar Society vie Jinarajadasa's *First Principles of = Theosophy* which although flawed by the CWL/Besant influence (admitted = now by the TS in England) none the less gave a thorough presentation of = the basics as suggested by its title, and I would still recommend it to = anyone who can find a copy and is starting out on the occult way. When I began teaching Kabbalah a couple of years later, all students = were recommended to read this book, and by 1959 I was pretty well = informed on theosophical ideas and teachings generally. In good faith I = approached the TS in England as it was then constituted, and was treated = as a dumb enquirer who would, of course, no absolutely nothing of the = subject. This was most people's experience in those days. Faced with = this air of arrogant superiority by such people as *bookshop staff* as = well as HQ officials of the day, I continued to teach a Theosophical = Kabbalah, but recommended to students that they study theosophy = *outside* the TS and to use its best features in their own spiritual = work. Many years later (in 1983) I found myself living in Theosophical = premises as a result of a Co-Masonic contact whose integrity I = respected. I also ran an Independent Catholic Chapel in the basement = (rented from the TS) in the line of succession from the LCC (but not an = LCC chapel). In 1989 I felt that having been fairly treated by the = local TS Lodge, I ought to offer something in return, and became a = member. Shortly after, there was a vacancy for Lodge Treasurer for = which I was nominated and elected. The following year I had the = opportunity to make my own input to the Lodge when I was elected Lodge = President, as also the following year. During my two years as President, I was able to increase attendance at = public meetings, as well as a slight increase in the membership. = However, some of the "old hands" of the previous administration did not = like my approach, which is fair enough, and began to spread rumours = about my desire for personal glory (!) behind my back, which is not fair = enough, nor fair at all. At least one of these (a former lodge = president) was an E.S. member. My main "real" crime was in promoting - = yes, promoting - criticism of TS teachings as the best means of taking = the TS motto seriously, that there is no religion higher than truth. If = the teachings hold up under criticism, then they must be doing OK. So .... although the rules required that no Lodge President should hold = the office for more than two consecutive years, which meant a change of = President in any event, I was presented as the TS equivalent of a tool = of the devil at the AGM, and the former president mentioned above was = re-elected. I nonetheless became Vice-President for a year, and the = following year simply a committee member. In this capacity I did what I = could to promote group meetings of local members interested in = broadening their horizons in the Kabbalist direction (Kabbalah is *a* = theosophy). Part of this also included the promotion (with other = members) of Theosophy International [which looks like a dead duck at the = moment - maybe it's the word]. There followed a smear campaign of lies, accusations of sexual = impropriety, glory-seeking (again) and contrary to International, = National, and Local rules, I was summarily thrown off the committee by a = different lodge president from the one mentioned. The furore which followed was no surprise, and became so intense that = the National Secretary (who is the equivalent of the National President = in the US) was obliged to chair the next AGM. As I had seen what was = coming, I had resigned from the Lodge but not the Society. This meant = that the AGM could discuss my alleged shortcomings/virtues but that I = was not allowed to present my case in person, being barred from the = meeting as a non-lodge member! About this time I came across Theos-L (Hurrah) and those of you who were = on the list at the time will recall some of this story posted at the = time. One way and another, I supported Theosophy and its perspectives, if not = all of its dogmas, for over 40 years - *and still do.* In a thousand years I would NEVER recommend to ANYONE that they join the = Adyar-run TS in any of its sections. My 1959 instincts are, it is very = clear, as reliable in 1999, forty years later, as they were then. I still point people towards theosophy, the good and the bad, as my web = site testifies, but as for the "Official" TS, long may t die - it = betrays its own as its history has shown it to do since before and after = the death of HPB. I honestly believe that I she were with us today, she = would most definitely not be a member, if only for want of steak and = tobacco! Heigh Ho! Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01BF049D.22D31A60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear All,
 
This is partly in response to the post from JRC replying to Bart, = but never=20 having been part of the TS in the USA, I do not feel altogether = competent to=20 make direct responses to that post.
 
What I would like to share with you all follows:
 
Way back in 1956 - 43 years ago - I began the study Theosophical = teachings=20 a la Adyar Society vie Jinarajadasa's *First Principles of Theosophy* = which=20 although flawed by the CWL/Besant influence (admitted now by the TS in = England)=20 none the less gave a thorough presentation of the basics as suggested by = its=20 title, and I would still recommend it to anyone who can find a copy and = is=20 starting out on the occult way.
 
When I began teaching Kabbalah a couple of years later, all = students were=20 recommended to read this book, and by 1959 I was pretty well informed on = theosophical ideas and teachings generally.  In good faith I = approached the=20 TS in England as it was then constituted, and was treated as a dumb = enquirer who=20 would, of course, no absolutely nothing of the subject.  This was = most=20 people's experience in those days.  Faced with this air of arrogant = superiority by such people as *bookshop staff* as well as HQ officials = of the=20 day, I continued to teach a Theosophical Kabbalah, but recommended to = students=20 that they study theosophy *outside* the TS and to use its best features = in their=20 own spiritual work.
 
Many years later (in 1983) I found myself living in Theosophical = premises=20 as a result of a Co-Masonic contact whose integrity I respected.  I = also=20 ran an Independent Catholic Chapel in the basement (rented from the TS) = in the=20 line of succession from the LCC (but not an LCC chapel).  In 1989 I = felt=20 that having been fairly treated by the local TS Lodge, I ought to offer=20 something in return, and became a member.  Shortly after, there was = a=20 vacancy for Lodge Treasurer for which I was nominated and elected.  = The=20 following year I had the opportunity to make my own input to the Lodge = when I=20 was elected Lodge President, as also the following year.
 
During my two years as President, I was able to increase = attendance at=20 public meetings, as well as a slight increase in the membership.  = However,=20 some of the "old hands" of the previous administration did not like my = approach,=20 which is fair enough, and began to spread rumours about my desire for = personal=20 glory (!) behind my back, which is not fair enough, nor fair at = all.  At=20 least one of these (a former lodge president) was an E.S. member.  = My main=20 "real" crime was in promoting - yes, promoting - criticism of TS = teachings as=20 the best means of taking the TS motto seriously, that there is no = religion=20 higher than truth.  If the teachings hold up under criticism, then = they=20 must be doing OK.
 
So .... although the rules required that no Lodge President should = hold the=20 office for more than two consecutive years, which meant a change of = President in=20 any event, I was presented as the TS equivalent of a tool of the devil = at the=20 AGM, and the former president mentioned above was re-elected.  I=20 nonetheless became Vice-President for a year, and the following year = simply a=20 committee member.  In this capacity I did what I could to promote = group=20 meetings of local members interested in broadening their horizons in the = Kabbalist direction (Kabbalah is *a* theosophy).  Part of this also = included the promotion (with other members) of Theosophy International = [which=20 looks like a dead duck at the moment - maybe it's the word].
 
There followed a smear campaign of lies, accusations of sexual = impropriety,=20 glory-seeking (again) and contrary to International, National, and Local = rules,=20 I was summarily thrown off the committee by a different lodge president = from the=20 one mentioned.
 
The furore which followed was no surprise, and became so intense = that the=20 National Secretary (who is the equivalent of the National President in = the US)=20 was obliged to chair the next AGM.  As I had seen what was coming, = I had=20 resigned from the Lodge but not the Society.  This meant that the = AGM could=20 discuss my alleged shortcomings/virtues but that I was not allowed to = present my=20 case in person, being barred from the meeting as a non-lodge = member!
 
About this time I came across Theos-L (Hurrah) and those of you who = were on=20 the list at the time will recall some of this story posted at the = time.
 
One way and another, I supported Theosophy and its perspectives, if = not all=20 of its dogmas, for over 40 years - *and still do.*
 
In a thousand years I would NEVER recommend to ANYONE that they = join the=20 Adyar-run TS in any of its sections.  My 1959 instincts are, it is = very=20 clear, as reliable in 1999, forty years later, as they were then.
 
I still point people towards theosophy, the good and the bad, as my = web=20 site testifies, but as for the "Official" TS, long may t die - it = betrays its=20 own as its history has shown it to do since before and after the death = of=20 HPB.  I honestly believe that I she were with us today, she would = most=20 definitely not be a member, if only for want of steak and tobacco!
 
Heigh Ho!
 
Alan
 
Alan@ambain.softnet.co.ukhttp://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/
 
 
Alan@ambain.softnet.co.ukhttp://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/
------=_NextPart_000_0045_01BF049D.22D31A60-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:57:36 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 2:59 PM > Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality > Well, in feeling welkom, I think that the TS is not a > uniform whole. In some parts members and non-members with > very different idea's feel welkom (some lodges, some > meetings about certain subjects) whereas other groups tend > to exclude people more or less involuntarily. > And before you tell me the first kind doesn't exist: I know > of at least three groups here in Europe, mostly in Holland, > because I do not know the TS in the rest of Europe, or the > world as well. > Having been several times to Holland, I suspect that your country is one of the places where people who think differently on TS teachings *would* be welcome. When I visited Amsterdam (twice) and Den Haag (once) I was received with great courtesy and hospitality. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 22:27:10 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy In a message dated 9/21/99 8:14:16 PM Central Daylight Time, Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > HPB. I honestly believe that I she were with us today, she would most > definitely not be a member, if only for want of steak and tobacco! and sex! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:09:17 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > Alan wrote: > During my two years as President, I was able to increase attendance at > public meetings, as well as a slight increase in the membership. > However, some of the "old hands" of the previous administration did > not like my approach, which is fair enough, and began to spread > rumours about my desire for personal glory (!) behind my back, which > is not fair enough, nor fair at all. Yes, I have seen a number of good Theosophists who were driven out by rumors that too many people believed. At one point, I handled a Kern Foundation Grant, and in spite of the fact that I added $500 of my own money to the grant, a rumor was passed around that I took a big fee for myself. The last time I ran for the New York Board, there was an organized slander campaign against me. The President of the Lodge made a speech to the membership, categorically denying all of the rumors. Of course, he did so AFTER the election... I decided to just keep doing my work, and ignore the politics. I have felt a LOT better since then (although I keep getting elected into office of the Northeast Federation in absentia, albeit with my permission). > There followed a smear campaign of lies, accusations of sexual > impropriety, THAT I have never been accused of (to my knowledge). The Adyar TS is democratically run. In any democratically run organization, no matter how high its aims, you will find lies, rumors, and backstabbing. It's just the nature of the beast. If you can remain active, and don't hold office, everybody likes you a LOT more... Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:05:14 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 11:09 PM 09/21/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > The Adyar TS is democratically run. In any democratically run organization, no matter how high its aims, you will find lies, rumors, and backstabbing. It's just the nature of the beast. If you can remain active, and don't hold office, everybody likes you a LOT more...< How Theosophical politiking is done at its highest levels, at least during the time of Arundale's election, one should read Ernest Wood's book "Is This Theosophy?" which was a very very rare book not found in most well stocked libraries but for its recent reprint by a Westcost publisher. It was after 30 years of association with Theosophical Society that I ran into very accidentally. But for theos-l many newbees would never know any of the feedback because the official channels of communication are totally controlled. Any one want to add.... mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:12:02 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 10:27 PM 09/21/1999 EDT, Hazarapet@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 9/21/99 8:14:16 PM Central Daylight Time, >Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > >> HPB. I honestly believe that I she were with us today, she would most >> definitely not be a member, if only for want of steak and tobacco! > >and sex! It was the *Leadbeaterian* theosophy that postulated ( and believed by many) that to spiritually progress celibacy was important. When Krishnmurti's physical relationships with Rosalind, his business managers wife was made public by Rosalind's daughter, many theosophists were shocked. On the other hand, a careful reading of his lectures made it clear that he never advocated celibacy as a pre-requisite. The general response from some of the membership has been that he had his weaknesses and don't consider him to be nothing other than a spiritual failure so they can go on and revel and rejoice in the revelation. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:21:34 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 01:52 AM 09/22/1999 +0100, Alan wrote: What I would like to share with you all follows: Way back in 1956 - 43 years ago - I began the study Theosophical teachings a la Adyar Society vie Jinarajadasa's *First Principles of Theosophy* which although flawed by the CWL/Besant influence (admitted now by the TS in England) none the less gave a thorough presentation of the basics as suggested by its title, and I would still recommend it to anyone who can find a copy and is starting out on the occult way. >>clip<<< I concur with Alan. I have read many of the Besant, Leadbeater, CJ books and learned about theosophy. But coupled with attending traditional lectures, the result was not independent thinking. One ends up assuming all that is written as incontrovertible facts, which is anti-thesis of independent thinking and investigation and being critical and skeptical about the facts. To me it took several decades before I got out and started thinking independently. Of late, with the award of Certificate in Theosophy, there is reinforcement of the written material officially approved and supported. Sometimes one wonders if any one can get a piece of paper certifying ones teaching and learning Divine Wisdom. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:27:42 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 01:52 AM 09/22/1999 +0100, Alan wrote: >During my two years as President, I was able to increase attendance at public meetings, as well as a slight increase in the membership. However, some of the "old hands" of the previous administration did not like my approach, which is fair enough, and began to spread rumours about my desire for personal glory (!) behind my back, which is not fair enough, nor fair at all. At least one of these (a former lodge president) was an E.S. member. My main "real" crime was in promoting - yes, promoting - criticism of TS teachings as the best means of taking the TS motto seriously, that there is no religion higher than truth. If the teachings hold up under criticism, then they must be doing OK.< It appears that one's that have made up their mind what "truth" is, care less about the motto is. May be when they discover real truth, they may have a nervous breakdown. May be this kind of approach may be one of the reasons for lack of vitality in theosophical organizations and perhaps the dwindling membership. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:38:21 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 01:52 AM 09/22/1999 +0100, Alan wrote: >About this time I came across Theos-L (Hurrah) and those of you who were on the list at the time will recall some of this story posted at the time.< You were lucky to find out about theos-l. At the time when I got my Internet account, I vaguely remembered about a theosophical maillist and tried to find the details --- I was a novice and did not know where to look. My inquires to official channels turned blank since I did not ask the right question!!! (I was not trained as lawyer and had been I would have asked the right all encompassing comprehensive question and would have received the right answer). So in the old fashioned way when I was talking to another member 1000 miles away, I mentioned about my interest and within 15 minutes this kind soul faxed me the details of subscribing to theos-l and I did and has been active since then. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:52:01 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality At 11:30 AM 09/21/1999 -0500, JRC wrote: > was answered by a couple of people who said they personally *knew* that the discussions here were followed exceedingly closely by people at headquarters.< Where else they can get information and true feedback? I have personally became aware of things in 3 years of theos-l that I did not know for last 30 years. It is also a very good possibility some of it being sent further higher up...... mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 23:55:58 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Lock-step mentality At 11:30 AM 09/21/1999 -0500, JRC wrote: Fact is, the leadership has *NEVER* >appeared on this list ... a list that at times has probably been the single >most active theosophical list on the internet. Nor any other list or newsgroup. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:01:33 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: In support of theosophy ==================================================== At 11:09 PM 09/21/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > The Adyar TS is democratically run. In any democratically run organization, no matter how high its aims, you will find lies, rumors, and backstabbing. It's just the nature of the beast. If you can remain active, and don't hold office, everybody likes you a LOT more...< How Theosophical politiking is done at its highest levels, at least during the time of Arundale's election, one should read Ernest Wood's book "Is This Theosophy?" which was a very very rare book not found in most well stocked libraries but for its recent reprint by a Westcost publisher. It was after 30 years of association with Theosophical Society that I ran into very accidentally. But for theos-l many newbees would never know any of the feedback because the official channels of communication are totally controlled. Any one want to add.... mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:44:23 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism In a message dated 9/21/99 11:12:33 PM Central Daylight Time, ramadoss@eden.com writes: > It was the *Leadbeaterian* theosophy that postulated ( and believed by > many) that to spiritually progress celibacy was important. > And that is the problem. The TS has become a opiate for spiritual couch potatoes and some want to control the drug and the proceeds from it. From an Caucasus perspective, to be celibate is the pre-condition for no progress in self-knowledge. The firm and steady foundation of self-knowledge is knowledge of oneself in light of conscience in the thick of it. One must have had the chance to be wrong, tested, and learn one's limitations and moral mistakes and regrets as well as concretely encountering one's talents, strengths, and triumphs. We take our heroes straight, including, lumps, warts, foul breath, farts, and fleas. We don't emaciate them by turning Arjunas of the Gita or Kay Khusrow of the Shahnama into glorified sissys after image of whimps like Leadbeater. Nor do we turn our angels into fat little babies or whispy little girls in Victorian nighties. Nor is spirituality the faded blue lodge atmosphere of an old maid aunt society that would faint with apoplexy over an HPB walking in cussing because the atmosphere was one of perfumed death such as one finds on cancer ward of old hospitals (Hemingway's description of the smell of death is actually smell of cancer). Spirit is spiritedness. It is a fierce and vigorous concept and reality. We still speak of a horse that has spirit or of esprit de corp. Spirit is that strong vital bond of life overcoming death. The word brahman comes from the old ksatriya word for a powerful true boast that works up others into a readiness to do battle by overcoming fears through collective elan and esprit de corp. It is cognate to the English word brag and Norse word for poetry, riddles, and divine power. Brahman is the boast of the vigor of Being (sat) over the impotence of non-Being (asat). Next, it was applied by Vedic priests to those mantras in the Rgveda that were particularly potent pieces. Its verbal root means to swell. Ever see the super-vigor of a pregnant woman almost smug with the degree of life and health radiating from her? That is the swelling that brahman is. In Persian, it is Fravahr and is cognate to the English word fierce. It is the joyful overabundance of life's immortal defeat of death. Thumos in Greek means samething. Thumos is cognate to English enthusiasm. What Leadbeater types call "spiritual" is Victorian weakness, repression, and de-spirited depression. It is the "joy" of the opiate addict or hypo-condriac (doctor to hypocondriac: I have bad news and good news. You are a hypo-condriac and I can't cure you of it. Doctor to normal mortal patient: I have good news and bad news. You are not a hypo-condriac."). What some fainting lillies, poor specimens of the human race, call "spiritual" is their own glorified incapacity, hypocrisy, and stench of the spiritually dying, who can only faint at the sight of a steak, become sick at the smell of a cigar, swoon or become tipsy after a shot of whiskey or vodka or retsina, and like the emphemerial mood music that blends with their lilac or lavender incense to create a heard and smelt haze that suits their faded "spirituality" which is actually their de-spirited stupor, and who make lodges smell and feel like a hospital ward for the terminally nostalgic, they recommend celibacy because they are under-sexed. Fasting, celibacy, and other such askesis was to overcome and a sign of growing strength, not of the incapacity of the Leadbeaters in life. Judaism, Sufis of Islam, Zoroastrianism, for example, forbid the monkish life. Such forms of askesis are temporary. Being celibate for 90 days by one who enjoys sex frequently is both more difficult and more productive than of one who hasn't developed the taste for it and enthusiasm for it. Fasting from cognac by one who has never savored it regularly is worthless. Because these are supplementary means to strengthen your mettle for the real test. For a real man (I do not presume to speak for women on this matter), to fast from the sex and cognac that he dearly loves, while an exercising and development of real spiritual strength, is only preparing for the real battle that is also being set up in the process. Fasting for a while from something one dearly loves brings out one's irritability, bad temper, foul mood, and anger very effectively. That is the setting up of the inner battle. THE REAL TEST IS THEN TO USE AND DEVELOP THE INNER STRENGTH TO GAINED IN FOREGOING SEX AND COGNAC TO NOT IDENTIFY WITH BUT OVERCOME THE RESULTING IRRITABILITY, BAD TEMPER, FOUL MOOD, AND ANGER that invariably results in one not yet perfect. But the real test, fasting inwardly from all the negativity that arises from fasting outwardly from a cherished desire, is still only a test. The reality is to learn to use this new inner ability and strength in the thick of things, in life, where things evoke hurt, anger, and bad temper. The Leadbeaters fast, vegitate, and celibate in order to avoid this process in the first place. No real loves, no real passions, no real angers and animosities, no real addictions, no real lusts, then nothing real to overcome. Fasting, vegitarianism, and celibacy are limited tools for limited times serving other ends. Leadbeaterites think they are the end-in-themselves, and thus, stick in their thumb and pull out their shrivelled plum, and say how spiritual are we when all they are is full of prunes (those shrivelled plums). No one is born perfect. But to become perfect one must have lived a real life, with real defeats, regrets, real mistakes, blood or dirt on ones hands, while trying to do good, help, contribute - all that is to learn from as a picture of who you are and where you are aiming really (are you really aiming at perfecting evolution or use it as a fancy label to mask your nefarious goals?) Self-knowledge for the imperfect (us) is of the bad and the good we are. We are angels and wolves. We have to be looking not only when our angelic pious Sunday best is in charge (so we can thrill to our piousness) but also catch ourselves in the act when the wolf is in control. To look at the wolf in us takes courage, some spirit that is strong enough to bear seeing in us what we don't like to see and sometimes have built-up a lifetime of habits to avoid seeing. We are deluded if we only look at ourselves when we are angels and don't allow ourselves to see the wolf and we are mistaken if we think pupose of seeing the wolf is to eliminate it. We must not deny the wolf but find its proper role and place within the larger moral, spiritual, and cosmic scheme. So, we must study both wolf and angel in us. To do that takes courage, tenacity, and dogged stubborness that we will know the truth of ourselves. That is spirit, the ability to overcome ourselves. Leadbeater and company mistakenly took the route of weakening ourselves, starving the wolf, killing the spiritual muscle, and deludedly called it spiritual evolution or spiritual self-mastery. Bull! To truly be a character, one must be an outrageous character. By that I mean we need to see we are all notorious characters of a questionable past and dubious worth as well as angels in training to become a tried and tested character, refined through the fire of life, to become a character that is truly a self-mastered moral character. Our imperfections, our impulses, our angel and our wolf, is the leaden raw material and prima materia for our transmutation. Leadbeater wishes to beat the lead into a soft plaint powder whose poisonous effect on the mind he mistakenly lauds as a higher state. Bah! In middle east, the best medium of testing and refining ones mettle is family and sex and money. As angel and wolf, how does one deal with these dimensions of life is thing first to find out as gauge to one's spiritual worth. Marriage is good for that. As it is said in Caucasus, a man is not a man worth his salt if he hasn't been salted, assaulted, and insulted in holy wedlock. Course, marriage is not exclusive measure nor same as sex but Leadbeaters (we know what his ancestors did, beat lead into spiritual snuff) who seek to evade involvement in key areas of life have no grist for their mill. Its like trying to become world traveler, veteran of adventures and wars, by watching TV and playing video war games. Such male-cows are cut out of herd and killed to insure health of herd in countries where such are raised. TS seems to collect them. Read the books and live a vicarious spiritual path. When the fare of even the original books becomes to strong, feed them the pablum of even a less nourishing vicarious feel good vaguely about something I didn't experience or live through myself. TS might as well advertise itself as cross between a New Thought lecture and a Christian Science Reading room. New Thought is feeling good about it instead of becoming it in fact. Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 15:50:00 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism Oh BABY that was one of the single best damned posts I have *ever* read on this list. Grigor I want *you* to be the next international president at Adyar. And that isn't sarcasm, I *mean* it. That *spirit* in your post, the attitude, is painted with the same brush HPB used ... in what you call the "Caucasus perspective" I hear overtones of the same fire that has produced some of the most stunning initiates the world has known. THAT is what is utterly missing from modern Theosophy - the enormity of its life side. Too damn much confusion of being "spiritual" with being "nice" and the personality level. Too much fear of mistakes, too much desire to control. The growing and utterly idiotic belief that growth can be *comfortable*, that progress comes about by *hiding* from life, that *risk* is to be avoided, that *conflict* is wrong, that one can storm the mountains of human evolution by avoiding almost every significant human experience, and indeed without even messing up one's hair; that one can *serve* human evolution without upsetting anyone ... Ha! Might as well believe an eagle can hatch without breaking it's egg, or that new forms of organization can emerge without disrupting or even troubling any of the people clinging to the old! Ha! -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:38:53 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism In a message dated 99-09-22 14:44:46 EDT, you write: << For a real man (I do not presume to speak for women on this matter), to fast from the sex and cognac that he dearly loves, >> Fasting from sex and cognac??? NOTHING is worth that! Chuck the heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:28:47 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Blavatsky Archives Online----A Rare item is published in its entirety This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF051F.ED4DFEE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm In the next few days we will be adding a number of rare=20 Blavatsky items to BAO. As far as I can ascertain, the article below has never=20 been reprinted in its entirety since its original publication 114 years = ago!! "How a Hindu of Madras Interviewed a Mahatma at Sikkim"=20 by R. Casava Pillai.=20 [Reprinted from The Indian Mirror (Calcutta), Vol. XXV,=20 March 3 and March 7, 1885.]=20 Daniel Caldwell ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF051F.ED4DFEE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
 
In the next few days we will be adding = a number of=20 rare
Blavatsky items to BAO.
 
As far as I can ascertain, the article = below has=20 never
been reprinted in its entirety since its original publication = 114=20 years ago!!
 
"How a Hindu of Madras Interviewed a = Mahatma at=20 Sikkim"
by R. Casava Pillai. 
[Reprinted from The Indian = Mirror=20 (Calcutta), Vol. XXV,
March 3 and March 7, 1885.]
 
 
 
Daniel = Caldwell
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01BF051F.ED4DFEE0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 02:21:41 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: apostles, TS,problems ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 2:08 AM > Subject: Re: apostles, TS,problems > Check out the roots of the word "apostle". It does NOT mean "student" > in any sense. > > Bart Lidofsky Correct. It derives from the Hebrew/Aramaic "Shaliach" or plenipotentiary. In ancient times, an important person might literally send someone in his or her name to act on his or her behalf. This was a heavy responsibility, for the person so sent was considered to be acting in every respect *as if* they were the sender in person, and the sender of the apostle/shaliach would be required to honour the "apostle's" decisions, even if the apostle got it wrong. If, as claimed, Jesus said he was acting in his father's (God's) name, then he was making a pretty big -and dangerous - claim. How do you collect from God? :0) I think though Bart, that Katinka was thinking of *disciples* rather than apostles. Paul's apostleship (?) was regarded as resting on doubtful foundations by many (esp. in the Jerusalem Church). See my "The Nazarenes" (Free download from my website). Ho hum. Hi Kym! Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:44:25 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 3:27 AM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > In a message dated 9/21/99 8:14:16 PM Central Daylight Time, > Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > > > HPB. I honestly believe that I she were with us today, she would most > > definitely not be a member, if only for want of steak and tobacco! > > and sex! > ..... Oops! My only excuse is that I'm getting old. I have heard though that the original E.S. rules re celibacy have been relaxed to a kind of equivalent of Victorian British morality at its worst .... Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:51:38 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bart Lidofsky > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 4:09 AM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > THAT I have never been accused of (to my knowledge). .... just hang around a while longer, and who knows? You may get lucky! > > The Adyar TS is democratically run. In any democratically run > organization, no matter how high its aims, you will find lies, rumors, > and backstabbing. It's just the nature of the beast. If you can remain > active, and don't hold office, everybody likes you a LOT more... > .... and a LOT LOT more if you are not a member of it! There is a small theosophical group in these parts which although it could probably find enough people (3) to form a centre or (7) to form a Lodge, chooses not to do so. Whether any one of them is a TS member I don't know, but I would suspect so. Local occult and/or new age groups who get a speaker from them do not usually ask for another one. The local cachement area holds about 20,000 adults. As I said before, Heigh Ho, Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:57:04 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy ----- Original Message ----- > From: M K Ramadoss > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:21 AM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > Of late, with the award of Certificate in Theosophy, there is reinforcement > of the written material officially approved and supported. Sometimes one > wonders if any one can get a piece of paper certifying ones teaching and > learning Divine Wisdom. > Of course. With modern word processors and templates you can print yourself one tomorrow. For the real thing though, you need to send me a large amount of money. Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:53:38 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy ----- Original Message ----- > From: M K Ramadoss > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:05 AM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > But for theos-l many newbees would never know any of the feedback because > the official channels of communication are totally controlled. > > Any one want to add.... > BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU little brother Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:58:24 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > It appears that one's that have made up their mind what "truth" is, care > less about the motto is. May be when they discover real truth, they may > have a nervous breakdown. Guaranteed! Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:19:46 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 7:44 PM > Subject: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism Dear Grigor, A most refreshing post! I have met the wolf! The wise call him brother wolf. ... or sister wolverine. Reminds me of passages in the bible where 1, God, and 2, Jesus agree that Satan has a job to do. Something not for the faint-hearted: In my twenties I decided to test the sexual impulse by deliberately not engaging in any kind of physical sex, but at the same time feeding my mind with as much sexual imagery as possible. After three days I started leaking ..... Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 05:20:03 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism > Fasting from sex and cognac??? > > NOTHING is worth that! > > Chuck the heretic Ha! Yeah - as a friend of mine says, "Yes, I *am* an agent of satan, but my role is largely ceremonial" (-:). Hey Chuck how are ya - another old-time pipes up again. Feel like we're having some sort of a TS cyber-lodge re-union here ... -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:41:25 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Interested? wicca, neo-pagan Bart wrote: > Wicca is a specific religion, and was pretty much the start of the > neo-pagan movement, which is far more general in scope (Wicca also has > the highest theosophical content). Does that mean that for instance the Wicca-rede, is not used in all the neo-pagan movement? Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:46:05 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: apostles, TS,problems Bart wrote: > Check out the roots of the word "apostle". It does NOT mean "student" in any sense. Katinka: But in general usage "apostle's" are usually not regarded to be as saintly or so as Jesus, are they? In fact, if one tries to imagine Sai Baba's Apostles, not that he has any, they are just *ordinary* human beings who are impressed with what he says and does and want to spread the message. In short: fallible. I know the pope pretends to be infallible, but I am concerned more with the reality than the pretence, or try to be, anyhow... Christine wrote: > Even Jesus' apostles had problems - just look at what happened with Judas. Katinka wrote: > Since apostles are *only* students, it is obvious that problesms will come up. How else are we going to learn? No pain, no gain... Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:58:18 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar Katinka wrote: > Funny thing is, when you study the way HPB did her work: > she hardly gave any lectures (except in the New York-days), > but her house was always open to stray visitors to discuss > things with her, and those people were certainly not only > her admirers. Bart: Running the risk of giving Doss new ideas, that was a common practice back then. One of the things mailing lists like this do is give us the equivalent of the old "salon". Katinka: > Every time Radha Burnier, Mary Anderson and Kim Dieu do not > turn up for the group discussions they organize for the > rest of us, I am more or less vaguely disappointed. I > always ask myself whether there is some difficult > philosophy behind it, or wether they just feel *too good* > for it. Or do they just think that they will not learn > anything and that therefore there is no reason to go? Which > might stop them from lecturing as easily... Bart: Well, note that in Blavatsky's time, the spiritual and temporal leadership of the Theosophical Society were split (something which I think is vital for any spiritual organization). I figure if the Mahtama's can't find a single person who can handle both duties, how the hell can we? In any case, they are temporal leaders of the TS, not spiritual leaders (although they may interfere in spiritual matters, disregarding the Mahatma's advice to Olcott), and might feel that their presence would actually block the free flow of ideas (would you want to discuss Theosophy to someone who can dissolve your entire national section on a whim?). Katinka (now) : I certainly would. Are you suggesting Radha Burnier should be left out of Theosophical discussions, because she has the administrative power? That would be very strange indeed, because I know, (I've met the lady several times) that theosophy is why she does it all, so thinking about it and discussing it, should be one of her interests, that she has power, does not make her less human. Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:25:00 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy, not pseudosophism In a message dated 99-09-23 06:23:29 EDT, you write: << Hey Chuck how are ya - another old-time pipes up again. Feel like we're having some sort of a TS cyber-lodge re-union here ... -JRC >> I know! Actually I sort of took a year's sabbatical from this stuff, moved up to Wisconsin to live with my girlfriend and ended up married to her last spring. There has been a benefit to it in that I'm finally far enough removed from the Wheaton hq that I'm not up to my neck in politics which means I can really start playing with the ideas. He he he he More heresy to come. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:26:59 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Interested? wicca, neo-pagan In a message dated 99-09-23 07:41:43 EDT, you write: << Does that mean that for instance the Wicca-rede, is not used in all the neo-pagan movement? Katinka >> Yes! There is a whole branch of neo-Paganism that despises the rede. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 07:29:16 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 01:58 PM 09/23/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >Katinka (now) : I certainly would. Are you suggesting Radha Burnier should be left out of Theosophical discussions, because she has the administrative power? That would be very strange indeed, because I know, (I've met the lady several times) that theosophy is why she does it all, so thinking about it and discussing it, should be one of her interests, that she has power, does not make her less human. Katinka< Well said. Many times there may be other forces in the picture that we may not be aware of. mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 07:36:07 -0500 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar >At 01:58 PM 09/23/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >>Katinka (now) : >I certainly would. Are you suggesting Radha Burnier should >be left out of Theosophical discussions, because she has >the administrative power? That would be very strange >indeed, because I know, (I've met the lady several times) >that theosophy is why she does it all, so thinking about it >and discussing it, should be one of her interests, that she >has power, does not make her less human. >Katinka< >Well said. >Many times there may be other forces in the picture that we may not be >aware of. Yes ... but, er, the problem has never been with people leaving the leaders *out* of discussions, its been getting them to participate in the first place. -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 08:34:03 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar <.fwd> In a message dated 99-09-23 08:32:03 EDT, you write: << Yes ... but, er, the problem has never been with people leaving the leaders *out* of discussions, its been getting them to participate in the first place. -JRC >> And then getting a word in edgewise once they start! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:47:57 -0500 From: M K Ramadoss Subject: Re: Internet in India:TS-Adyar At 07:36 AM 09/23/1999 -0500, JRC wrote: >>At 01:58 PM 09/23/1999 +0200, hesse600 wrote: >>>Katinka (now) : >>I certainly would. Are you suggesting Radha Burnier should >>be left out of Theosophical discussions, because she has >>the administrative power? That would be very strange >>indeed, because I know, (I've met the lady several times) >>that theosophy is why she does it all, so thinking about it >>and discussing it, should be one of her interests, that she >>has power, does not make her less human. >>Katinka< >>Well said. >>Many times there may be other forces in the picture that we may not be >>aware of. > > >Yes ... but, er, the problem has never been with people leaving the leaders >*out* of discussions, its been getting them to participate in the first >place. -JRC Agreed. I have been hammering this point for a long time.... ...mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 21:16:24 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: Interested? wicca, neo-pagan Yes, but it is used in many. Also, note that the Wiccan Rede comes partially from Thelema, where "will" refers to "Divine Will" or, as we prefer, Atma/Buddhi. Considering that, the Rede, "An it harm none, do what thou wilt" can be read as "In order to harm none, follow one's Atma/Buddhi." Being allergic to ritual myself, I just study, I don't follow. Bart Lidofsky hesse600 wrote: > > Bart wrote: > > Wicca is a specific religion, and was pretty much the start of the > > neo-pagan movement, which is far more general in scope (Wicca also has > > the highest theosophical content). > Does that mean that for instance the Wicca-rede, is not > used in all the neo-pagan movement? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:11:36 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 Hey, does anyone know anyone is Idaho (a tiny state in America with a big mouth) who is well versed enough in Theosophy who could, and may be willing to, address a university class on the subject? The class is about "The End of the World" - concentrating on Revelations and the Book of Daniel. All of the other speakers we have had are linear Christians who take the concept of the "Rapture" as literal fact; and no one in the class is familiar with any kind of Eastern thought on the subject of "the end of the world." For most of these students, "heaven," and "hell" and are the only "places" one goes after death or after the "Jesus descends on a cloud" event. The professor found out that I was familiar with theosophy/Theosophy and wants me to bring in a speaker or speak myself. I am not enough of an enlighted being yet who will be able to resist "Kym's philosopy of theosophy/Theosophy," so I'm trying to locate someone else to 'spread the word.' On the other hand, I don't want to present a "fundamental" Thesophist to the class - I mean, I want to look good, you know? Anyway, any advice or guidance? I'll try not to take silence regarding my post as personal. . .. Kym P.S. Hi, Alan the Evil. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:38:02 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 Grigor wrote: >Marriage is good for that. As it is said in Caucasus, a man is not a >man worth his salt if he hasn't been salted, assaulted, and insulted in holy >wedlock. This is an odd analogy the "Caucasus" makes - throughout history and into present day, men have found marriage to be a very easy way to deal with life; hardly a test to their character. Current and past statistics continually show that married women have the highest rate of suicide and depression; whereas, married men attempt suicide and depression the least (single men are the unhappiest group of all). It would seem that most married men don't experience being "salted, assaulted, and insulted" in marriage. Then again, one could turn it around and say that the high suicide of married women simply means they failed the "test" of character. In my opinion, there is tad bit of sexism and/or ignorance in this particular passage of the "Caucasus." Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:50:44 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: The theosophy of potatoes In a message dated 9/24/99 11:12:00 AM Central Daylight Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > Anyway, any advice or guidance? > Catch their undivided attention. Life is like a potato..... Then maybe, according to theosophy, there isn't two ultimate destinations or final ends. Some will become French Fries, some au gratin, some mashed, smashed, or hashed, some boiled, some baked, some dutch oven Holland potatoes, potato salad, chips, flour, bread, vodka (a true transformation - ah, Ketel One), and some, well, just rotten..... Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:08:27 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 9/24/99 11:38:02 AM Central Daylight Time, kymsmith@micron.net writes: > > Then again, one could turn it around and say that the high suicide of > married women simply means they failed the "test" of character. > > In my opinion, there is tad bit of sexism and/or ignorance in this > particular passage of the "Caucasus." > Maybe the only thing statistics finds is more statistics. Maybe its marriage in modern world that isn' t what it used to be. In old country, it involves almost whole village as in-laws, cousins, and relatives of one degree or another. And they have saying for women too. I never got to hear it, though. You know when someone has said it, though. Accusing looks by the women generally in the men's direction is sign it was said. But basically, such sayings mean you can't choose your life circumstances, so learn from it, and that a single day out of your life reveals much about your life. How you deal with the day is good clue to how'll you'll spend your life. The typical day is a microcosm of a life. A typical day is your raw material with both circumstantial limits and possibilities. Grigor "A girl becomes a woman by being blamed, pained, and drained without other women to abide with her and guide her husband." From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 17:12:25 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 9/24/99 4:08:53 PM Central Daylight Time, Hazarapet@aol.com writes: > "A girl becomes a woman by being blamed, pained, and drained without other > women to abide with her and guide her husband." > I forgot, that is what is rumored to be the women's saying. It doesn't translate well into this culture. Maybe equivalent from this culture is "a mother dies many deaths." Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 16:09:49 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: THEOSOPHY IN CALCUTTA by Norendra Nath Sen. Reprinted on Blavatsky Archives Online. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF06A7.3A3C5200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm One more item added to the archives: THEOSOPHY IN CALCUTTA by Norendra Nath Sen. =20 (Reprinted from The Indian Mirror (Calcutta), Vol. XXII, April 14, 1882, = p. [2].) A reminder: If you have any hard-to-find articles, etc. on Madame = Blavatsky and her teachers, please think of us and send us copies. = We'll publish them on BAO for the benefit of all students, researchers = and scholars interested in HPB and the early days of modern Theosophy. =20 Daniel H. Caldwell danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF06A7.3A3C5200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES ONLINE
http://sites.nets= cape.net/dhcblainfo/index.htm
 
One more item added to the=20 archives:

THEOSOPHY IN CALCUTTA by=20 Norendra Nath Sen. 
(Reprinted from The Indian Mirror = (Calcutta), Vol.=20 XXII, April 14, 1882, p. [2].)
 
 A reminder:  If you have=20 any hard-to-find articles, etc. on Madame Blavatsky and her = teachers,=20 please think of us and send us copies.  We'll publish them on BAO = for the=20 benefit of all students, researchers and scholars interested in HPB and = the=20 early days of modern Theosophy. 
 
Daniel H. Caldwell
 
danielhcaldwell@hotmail.com
 
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF06A7.3A3C5200-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:45:11 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 5:11 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 > Hey, does anyone know anyone is Idaho (a tiny state in America with a big > mouth) who is well versed enough in Theosophy who could, and may be willing > to, address a university class on the subject? The class is about "The End > of the World" - concentrating on Revelations and the Book of Daniel. I would gladly do this and jin the other big mouths in Idaho (Love 'ya Kym) especially as I live at the end of the world. Trouble is, it isn't in Idaho. > All > of the other speakers we have had are linear Christians who take the > concept of the "Rapture" as literal fact; and no one in the class is > familiar with any kind of Eastern thought on the subject of "the end of the > world." For most of these students, "heaven," and "hell" and are the only > "places" one goes after death or after the "Jesus descends on a cloud" > event. > Hurrumph, as I often say. These students need some education. [Example of wit]. There is no such place as "heaven" in the Bible, only in the translations. Both Hebrew and Greek mention "the heavens" in the plural, but there does not appear to be a concept of "heaven" as a singular place. Likewise "hell." There is a choice here between Gehenna (Heb. name of a horrid place) or Hades (Greek for underworld, understood by some [me especially] as being right here. Our Earth is seen as the lowest world in the chain, and thus "under" or "below" all the others. The activities of the militias in East Timor right now, the Serbian slaughterers in Kosovo, and various Africans with machetes all fit very well with the classic descriptions of hell. I doubt that Jesus will descend on a cloud. Let's face it, he is supposed to have left in one, which is not usually regarded as auspicious in modern usage. > The professor found out that I was familiar with theosophy/Theosophy and > wants me to bring in a speaker or speak myself. I am not enough of an > enlighted being yet who will be able to resist "Kym's philosopy of > theosophy/Theosophy," so I'm trying to locate someone else to 'spread the > word.' Anyway, any advice or guidance? > Give 'em Kyms' philosophy of t/T - thye sound as though they need it. > > I'll try not to take silence regarding my post as personal. . .. > > > Kym > > P.S. Hi, Alan the Evil. Hehehehehehehehehehehe! [Evil laughter] Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 18:35:34 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 I do not know anyone in Idaho. There is one Richard Brooks in MI who is a retired professor who would be ideal. I had the chance to hear his presentation of theosophy/Theosophy and was delighted in his broad approach which was one of the best I have heard in decades. He is also a retired professor of philosophy or some related subject. May be we can induce him to visit Idaho. mkr ====================== At 10:11 AM 09/24/1999 -0600, kymsmith@micron.net wrote: >Hey, does anyone know anyone is Idaho (a tiny state in America with a big mouth) who is well versed enough in Theosophy who could, and may be willing to, address a university class on the subject? The class is about "The End of the World" - concentrating on Revelations and the Book of Daniel. All of the other speakers we have had are linear Christians who take the concept of the "Rapture" as literal fact; and no one in the class is familiar with any kind of Eastern thought on the subject of "the end of the world." For most of these students, "heaven," and "hell" and are the only "places" one goes after death or after the "Jesus descends on a cloud" event. The professor found out that I was familiar with theosophy/Theosophy and wants me to bring in a speaker or speak myself. I am not enough of an enlighted being yet who will be able to resist "Kym's philosopy of theosophy/Theosophy," so I'm trying to locate someone else to 'spread the word.' On the other hand, I don't want to present a "fundamental" Thesophist to the class - I mean, I want to look good, you know? Anyway, any advice or guidance? I'll try not to take silence regarding my post as personal. . .. Kym< From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 20:28:49 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 9/24/99 6:36:24 PM Central Daylight Time, RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > May be we can induce him > to visit Idaho. Does he like vodka? Cheap vodka is made from wheat. Good vodka is made from potatoes! Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 22:26:33 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 At 08:28 PM 09/24/1999 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 9/24/99 6:36:24 PM Central Daylight Time, >RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > >> May be we can induce him >> to visit Idaho. > >Does he like vodka? Cheap vodka is made from wheat. Good vodka is made from >potatoes! > >Grigor vodka is not that popular in these parts!!! mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:25:12 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 99-09-24 17:08:46 EDT, you write: << Maybe the only thing statistics finds is more statistics. >> There is the old saying that "There are lies, damn lies and statistics," which has an unfortunate implication concerning the character of thems who use them. Use that on your insurance adjuster some time and watch him turn pretty colors. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:27:22 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 99-09-24 19:36:17 EDT, you write: << I do not know anyone in Idaho. There is one Richard Brooks in MI who is a retired professor who would be ideal. I had the chance to hear his presentation of theosophy/Theosophy and was delighted in his broad approach which was one of the best I have heard in decades. He is also a retired professor of philosophy or some related subject. May be we can induce him to visit Idaho. mkr >> Richard Brooks is a man of perspicacity and wisdom. I cannot imagine him going any where near Idaho. (nasty laugh as appropriate) Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:28:44 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 99-09-24 20:29:16 EDT, you write: << Does he like vodka? >> Unfortunately he is, to the best of my knowledge a teetotaler, which means when he asks for a glass of water.... Oh, that would be too nasty even for me! Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 11:29:38 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 99-09-24 23:27:00 EDT, you write: << vodka is not that popular in these parts!!! mkr >> Oh yes it is! My mother (rest her many souls) could make a vodka martini that would floor an elephant. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 12:20:32 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 9/25/99 10:29:58 AM Central Daylight Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: > My mother (rest her many souls) could make a vodka martini that would floor > an elephant. > What it have? A mouse anchovy in it? From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:56:22 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Chuck Married??? >>Actually I sort of took a year's sabbatical from this stuff, moved up to Wisconsin to live with my girlfriend and ended up married to her last spring.<< Chuck, congratualtions. She must really be special! I didn't think you'd ever do it. Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 17:04:47 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Response to Doss on Celibacy [Doss:]<> Doss, please don't blame CWL for this one. This Victorian notion comes directly from the Masters (its in the MLs) themselves. <> Again, this is human nature and is true for most who read HPB and the MLs as well. I think we need independent thinking with whomever the source of a book might be. I still don't "go along with" HPB in all areas, for example. One the one hand this makes me an independent thinker, but on the other hand there are several on this list who wonder why I am in Theosophy since I disagree with her on something she wrote. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 16:49:22 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? In a message dated 9/25/99 3:09:58 PM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > Chuck, congratualtions. She must really be special! I didn't think you'd > ever do it. > In Caucasus we say, it is not true until in-law rumors say it is so. Sometimes overide poor priest! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:38:51 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 99-09-25 12:21:00 EDT, you write: << > My mother (rest her many souls) could make a vodka martini that would floor > an elephant. > What it have? A mouse anchovy in it? --- >> ROFLMAO!!!!! No, the cat would have drunk it then. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:43:35 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? In a message dated 99-09-25 16:09:52 EDT, you write: << Chuck, congratualtions. She must really be special! I didn't think you'd ever do it. Jerry S >> That she is and thanks. I met her a little over two years ago and it was lust at first sight, which rather quickly became love and stayed that way, so last May I did the heretofore unthinkable. Now, if anyone has recipes for roast in-laws.... Chuck From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:48:42 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? In a message dated 99-09-25 16:49:41 EDT, you write: << > In Caucasus we say, it is not true until in-law rumors say it is so. Sometimes overide poor priest! >> Good thing this isn't the Caucasus! The rumors about me that MY in-laws believed were amazing. Of course they stay out of our hair, especially since I nearly threw one over a balcony a little over a year ago. (Damn! that was strong Vodka!) To say they were not happy about the marriage would be an understatement, except for my father-in-law who is a genuine saint if ever there is one. His other daughters were quite upset because now THEY have to actually get off their duffs and look in on him occasionally. So now the list can expect not only to hear from me a lot more, but get oodles of brother-in-law jokes. Chuck From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:53:05 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 4:29 PM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 > My mother (rest her many souls) could make a vodka martini that would floor > an elephant. > > Chuck the Heretic > I remember it well. Elephant. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:57:07 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Response to Doss on Celibacy ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 10:04 PM > Subject: Response to Doss on Celibacy > I still don't "go along with" HPB in > all areas, for example. One the one hand this makes me an > independent thinker, but on the other hand there are several on > this list who wonder why I am in Theosophy since I disagree > with her on something she wrote. > Which is a ridiculous attitude. If HPB is read properly, it becomes clear she regarded herself as a modern (for her time) interpreter of occult wisdom, *not its inventor!* Sigh. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 00:59:46 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? ----- Original Message ----- >E From: > Date: Saturday, September 25, 1999 11:48 PM > Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? > So now the list can expect not only to hear from me a lot more, but get > oodles of brother-in-law jokes. > No, no! Anything but that! Gad, Chuck, you can be as cruel as ever! Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:50:59 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 22, 1999 In a message dated 9/25/99 7:23:52 PM Central Daylight Time, Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > > My mother (rest her many souls) could make a vodka martini that would > floor > > an elephant. > > > > Chuck the Heretic > > > I remember it well. > > Elephant. > > > So do I, I think. Here's looking you! Mouse From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:55:44 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? In a message dated 9/25/99 5:43:59 PM Central Daylight Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: > Now, if anyone has recipes for roast in-laws.... > > Chuck > Head-cheese, Filet of Soul, and several new recipes from Dr. Suess's new classic, Silence of the Hams. Sam-I-am, previously beloved from Green Eggs and Ham, is found in this book with a new little friend, Hannibal (who aspires to be a Baltimore psychiatrist and gourmet), who pushes on him novel foodstuffs, until he turns the tables on Sam-I-am. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 21:56:48 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? In a message dated 9/25/99 5:48:54 PM Central Daylight Time, Drpsionic@aol.com writes: > << > > In Caucasus we say, it is not true until in-law rumors say it is so. > Sometimes overide poor priest! > >> > > Good thing this isn't the Caucasus! The rumors about me that MY in-laws > believed were amazing. > In Caucasus, it is not what in-laws believe. It is about what they spread! From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:21:05 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: In Laws >>Now, if anyone has recipes for roast in-laws.... Chuck<< I never tried to roast mine, but I did manage to get rid of them. I simply outlived them both. Betty's mother died years ago and her father past on last Jan at the age of 87. Now we are both orphans (of course we are also newbie senior citizens which is horrifying until you consider the alternative). Jerry S From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:45:35 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: Chuck Married??? In a message dated 99-09-25 21:56:58 EDT, you write: << In Caucasus, it is not what in-laws believe. It is about what they spread! >> What my in-laws spread usually gets complaints from the Environmental Protection Agency. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 11:52:04 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: In Laws In a message dated 99-09-26 10:26:08 EDT, you write: << I never tried to roast mine, but I did manage to get rid of them. I simply outlived them both. Betty's mother died years ago and her father past on last Jan at the age of 87. Now we are both orphans (of course we are also newbie senior citizens which is horrifying until you consider the alternative). Jerry S >> Well, as I said at my birthday party a month ago, if I had known that turning 50 would be so much fun I would have done it 20 years ago. So now that I'm on what is for most folks the downhill side of aging, I'm almost beginning to look forward to being an old fart. Of course that could come from hanging around theosophists, who, for all of their faults, never seem to let advancing calendars slow them down. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 04:40:06 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In Laws ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 4:52 PM > Subject: Re: In Laws > Well, as I said at my birthday party a month ago, if I had known that turning > 50 would be so much fun I would have done it 20 years ago. > > So now that I'm on what is for most folks the downhill side of aging, I'm > almost beginning to look forward to being an old fart. > I thought you started *that* 20 years ago? Hehehehehehehehe! Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:22:16 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: From the land of transparent waters and brains Chuck wrote: >Richard Brooks is a man of perspicacity and wisdom. I cannot imagine him >going any where near Idaho. 'scuse me while I pick myself up off the floor (after hitting such floor extremely hard). Laughter can be dangerous. Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:25:04 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 26, 1999 Chuck wrote: >What my in-laws spread usually gets complaints from the Environmental >Protection Agency. Eewww! Help me, Jesus! Kym From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:18:26 -0600 From: kymsmith@micron.net Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 24, 1999 Grigor wrote: >Subject: The theosophy of potatoes >Then maybe, according to theosophy, there isn't two ultimate >destinations or final ends. Some will become French Fries, some >au gratin, some mashed, smashed, or hashed, some boiled, >some baked, some dutch oven Holland potatoes, potato salad, >chips, flour, bread, vodka (a true transformation - ah, Ketel One), >and some, well, just rotten..... I see. Talk to the people in their own language! Gotcha! Know one's audience. >Maybe the only thing statistics finds is more statistics. Maybe its marriage >in modern world that isn' t what it used to be. In old country, it involves >almost whole village as in-laws, cousins, and relatives of one degree or >another. Well, again, even in the "old days" marriage still proved an early death for most women. Spousal abuse is not a modern phenomenon - having one's family around usually kept a women in her place, rather than serving as a woman's advocate. >But basically, >such sayings mean you can't choose your life circumstances, so learn from it, >and that a single day out of your life reveals much about your life. I understand; however, we can choose some of our life's circumstances - today, unlike the past, both males and females in Western society can freely choose to marry or not. Women have yet to gain that right in some Islamic countries. Some people have no business being married or having children, no matter what life lessons they may glean from them. It is not ONLY the individual that is involved, it is those who will enter into the circumstance with them (husband, wife, children, dog, cat, bird). If a man can learn patience in a marriage, but it requires a woman (or a male partner if he is gay) to endure abuse while the individual learns the lesson of patience, well, to me, this avenue is the wrong one. Just because some circumstance of life will teach you something doesn't mean you should embark upon that path - one must consider the pain that will be inflicted upon OTHERS. I do not agree that we must accept ALL of a person's "warts, lumps, and bumps" - if society or we as individuals were to actually do that, what purpose would there be for a person to advance themselves? If we accepted people and circumstances as they are, then the concept of "challenge and change" would become obsolete. I realize it is a very fine line between a person's 'right to be' and the 'needs of society' - but neither complete liberty nor complete authoritarianism will work. We, as a world, must somehow figure out how to demand the "best" from everyone while still maintaining individuality. Now, specifically about my complaint about the quote (not you personally): As a woman, I so tire of writings, be them political, spiritual, cultural, theosophical, that tend to revolve around the perspectives of men. Too frequently the most accepted and often quoted statements do not really apply to women's lives and their circumstances. It continues to amaze me that Theosophy, which was "founded" by a woman, managed to form itself into a male-oriented and male-dominated philosophy - especially since the existence of the Gigantic males of theosophy (the Mahatmas) hasn't been proven. The only "expert" we know of for sure in Theosophy is a female. I guess we, as a society, would rather place possible imaginary males in the "highest" of positions then a real, poke-with-a-stick female. Perhaps HPB knew more about current human psychology than we give her credit for. . .. Anyway, thanks for the advice on my "class" problem. Kym P.S. To Alan: Give them "Kym's rendition?" Ok, well, if anything horrifying happens, I'll tell the authorities that I was only following your command. That will surely prove to be a "get out of jail free" card. ;-) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:11:04 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: >> HPB. I honestly believe that I she were with us today, she would most >> definitely not be a member, if only for want of steak and tobacco! ... wrote: >and sex! Ramados: It was the *Leadbeaterian* theosophy that postulated ( and believed by many) that to spiritually progress celibacy was important. Katinka: But study Leadbeater's life and celibacy does not seem to be something he practiced... Blavatskyan theosophy says that celibacy is important, on the other hand it also denies it at places. We are left with judging for ourselves. :-) Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:12:49 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy Mkr wrote: > Of late, with the award of Certificate in Theosophy, there is reinforcement > of the written material officially approved and supported. Sometimes one > wonders if any one can get a piece of paper certifying ones teaching and > learning Divine Wisdom. Indeed... This is the first I've heard of a Certificate in Theosophy.. Can you tell me more? Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:15:34 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy MKR wrote: > It appears that one's that have made up their mind what "truth" is, care > less about the motto is. May be when they discover real truth, they may > have a nervous breakdown. May be this kind of approach may be one of the > reasons for lack of vitality in theosophical organizations and perhaps the > dwindling membership. Usually understanding truth comes slowly and by inches, not in the kind of rush that causes a nervous breakdown. Still, I hope that a more tolerant approach may dawn on them in this life and that they will start practicing it in silence (but anounce it to us of course :-) ) Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:29:07 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: Re: In support of theosophy Alan wrote: > > HPB. I honestly believe that I she were with us today, she would most definitely not be a member, if only for want of steak and tobacco! somebody else ? : > > and sex! Alan: ..... Oops! My only excuse is that I'm getting old. I have heard though that the original E.S. rules re celibacy have been relaxed to a kind of equivalent of Victorian British morality at its worst .... Katinka: aye, sex in marriage or a stable relationship is allowed and homosexual relationships are allowed or not, depending on which national section you are in! And then I read in the HPB collected writings that it was only advised to be celibate, not eat meat and not drink alcohol... How has the spirit of the rules disappeared, I wonder? (retorical question) Katinka NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 10:46:17 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) From: hesse600 Subject: is it theosophical if you get paid money? Hi all, about money again... Katinka: > > 2. What was the most interesting service you rendered? > I tutor (math and chemistry), but since they pay me for it, > I am not sure it is *theosophical* work. Eldon wrote: I'd say that it's "theosophical" or not based upon *how* you do it, on how you experience it, on what you make happen under the circumstances. If you care about the people you're tutoring, and you care about what you're doing, and you bring a clear mind, open heart, and attentive spirit to the tutoring work, the fact that you make money for it is irrelevant. Katinka: Yes, but the problem with money is, that it can so easily become the motive, and then, where is my spirituality? Out the window... Not being sure of my motive, I don't know for sure whether my turoring falls under theosophy... Katinka (Yes Alan, it seems Ti-l has moved to Theos-L...) Hi Kym and Christine... NHL Leeuwarden hesse600@tem.nhl.nl From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:13:55 EDT From: Drpsionic@aol.com Subject: Re: In support of theosophy In a message dated 99-09-27 04:21:12 EDT, you write: << Indeed... This is the first I've heard of a Certificate in Theosophy.. Can you tell me more? Katinka >> It was some sort of nonsense they came out with few years ago with the creation of the "Olcott Institute" by which theosophists could be institutionalized and certified. As most of us are certifiable anyway it seemed like a waste of time and I thought it had pretty much withered away for lack of interest. Chuck the Heretic From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:59:08 -0700 From: Eldon B Tucker Subject: Re: is it theosophical if you get paid money? Katinka: > > I'd say that it's "theosophical" or not based upon *how* > > you do it, on how you experience it, on what you make happen > > under the circumstances. > > > > If you care about the people you're tutoring, and you care > > about what you're doing, and you bring a clear mind, open > > heart, and attentive spirit to the tutoring work, the fact > > that you make money for it is irrelevant. > > Yes, but the problem with money is, that it can so easily > become the motive, and then, where is my spirituality? > Out the window... Not being sure of my motive, I don't know > for sure whether my turoring falls under theosophy... I'd come back to the basic point that the best perspective that we take considers the unity of life as most important. The greatest good to all is paramount. But "the all" includes us too. Our needs count as much as those of anyone else. We don't take the narrow view that all that is important is what's best for ourselves, and not care at all about others. It's ok to go into the kitchen and fix ourselves food when we're hungry, even though at other times our attention may be directed to feeding the hungry. It's ok for us to work and make money and enjoy a portion of the material things in life too. But there's a balancing act that we perform. We enjoy life without being caught up in greed and attachment on one side of the scale, and without being caught up in selfish asceticism on the other hand. There's a middle way to experiencing life without getting trapped by it nor having to flee it at all costs in order to achieve inner peace. Money can be the motive for choosing to work. Needing to eat can be the motive for fixing dinner. Needing friendship can be the motive for seeking out buddies and enjoying their company. Needing higher knowledge can be the motive for going in search of the mystery teachings. The determining factor in the value of what we do is in the higher qualities that we lend to the experience. It's not the outer, literal, physical plane action we're doing, particularly, that decides what has happened. What's happening is in our consciousness, our perception, our living out of higher qualities in the action. This includes motivation, a caring for others, a sense of wisdom, an enjoyment of the omnipresent nature of the divine, saturating every aspect of live and living. What we bring to the situation can make it into an entirely different world that another person may experience, standing by our sides. Making money can be as important a part of being a good actor in the divine drama as anything else that we might do, as long as the sense of being "this person," the sense of standing apart from others, the sense of self-centeredness and selfishness doesn't cloud our vision and darken our hearts. -- Eldon From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:37:10 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 24, 1999 ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 6:18 AM > Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 24, 1999 > P.S. To Alan: Give them "Kym's rendition?" Ok, well, if anything > horrifying happens, I'll tell the authorities that I was only following > your command. That will surely prove to be a "get out of jail free" card. > ;-) > ..... or you could emigrate? Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:39:47 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: In support of theosophy ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 9:11 AM > Subject: Re: In support of theosophy > Blavatskyan theosophy says that celibacy is important, on > the other hand it also denies it at places. We are left > with judging for ourselves. :-) > > Katinka Which is the very best approach we can take. Blavatsky did, I am sure. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:45:17 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: is it theosophical if you get paid money? ----- Original Message ----- > From: hesse600 > Date: Monday, September 27, 1999 9:46 AM > Subject: is it theosophical if you get paid money? > Hi all, about money again... > Katinka: > Yes, but the problem with money is, that it can so easily > become the motive, and then, where is my spirituality? > Out the window... Not being sure of my motive, I don't know > for sure whether my turoring falls under theosophy... In over 40 years I have never and still will not make any charge for teaching occult matters. It is better that students spend their money on buying books for study, etc. > > Katinka > > (Yes Alan, it seems Ti-l has moved to Theos-L...) If the spirit of TI-L lives on, then this is what matters, not where it is or what it is called! > Hi Kym and Christine... I agree. Hi Kym and Christine. (Get out of jail free cards available at $50 each, signed by hand) Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:44:17 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: To pay or not to pay? This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF0A0B.61113960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As the subject came up, W.Q.Judge wrote of the TS in 1894: "... our poverty and lack of earthly applause and reward have saved us = from cranks and sectarians who, subliminally attracted by wealth, would = prate of doctrine and duty while they stood guard over the cash-box.. = In the strength of our ideal and devotion is our power, and that work = which is done without the blighting influence of a debit and credit = account goes further and lasts longer than any which is given as return = for a money consideration." It didn't stay that way, and TS members are - surprise! - more often = than not regarded as the kinds of sectarians that he described. Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF0A0B.61113960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As the subject came up, W.Q.Judge wrote of the TS in 1894:
 
"... our poverty and lack of earthly applause and reward have saved = us from=20 cranks and sectarians who, subliminally attracted by wealth, would prate = of=20 doctrine and duty while they stood guard over the cash-box..  In = the=20 strength of our ideal and devotion is our power, and that work which is = done=20 without the blighting influence of a debit and credit account goes = further and=20 lasts longer than any which is given as return for a money = consideration."
 
It didn't stay that way, and TS members are - surprise! - more = often than=20 not regarded as the kinds of sectarians that he described.
 
Alan
 
Alan@ambain.softnet.co.ukhttp://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01BF0A0B.61113960-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:40:28 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: To pay or not to pay? Alan Wrote: I spend half of my life in India and in every branch I visited, there were no admission or other fees or suggested donation for one cause or the other or even passing of a plate for collection. No effort was made to collect. Usually a couple of well to do members took care of the needs. There were not any place even to leave a donation if you wanted to. Also I have listened many many lectures from well known members and lesser known members without paying a single penny or rupee. Many branches would not even inquire if you are a formal member or not. They are just happy that you took the time to visit and participate. BTW, at one time there was a move at Adyar to feed every attendee free during the annual convention. All is different in the US where money is the king. Collecting fee or donation for one cause or the other is more the norm than exception and is taken for granted; more the fee the better is. Just for example one just needs to go and look at the programs at the TS/Wheaton website to get an idea. Unlucky is the man or woman who is poor and penniless, as far as organized theosophy is concerned. May be we can blame it on the Karma of the individual and wish him/her well in a future life trying to use the principle of Karma to explain the phenomenon. I do not know how the Founders view this phenomenon in the Kali Yuga! At least some of the classics are available in the public libraries in hard copies or free access on Internet terminals in libraries. mkr PS: As the saying goes -- Devil Quoting the scripture. Human mind can conjure 1000 arguments/ reasons why a fee or collection is essential for survival. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 08:35:31 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: To pay or not to pay? In a message dated 9/28/99 9:41:30 PM Central Daylight Time, RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM writes: > PS: As the saying goes -- Devil Quoting the scripture. Human mind can > conjure 1000 arguments/ reasons why a fee or collection is essential for > survival. > Yes, I have to pay for my grandchildren! :-) Grigor From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:43:58 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: More on Art Gregory's "mistaken identity" hypothesis about the Masters Art Gregory wrote: > Colonel Olcott in his testimony reports that he mostly > met these Masters in their "doubles' or astral double form. . . . > If there was contact on the physical plane such contacts were brief and > fleeting and could be explained by mere coincidences and mistaken > identities... See how well Art Gregory's "mere coincidences" and "mistaken identities" hypotheses hold up in light of what Henry Olcott says below: In the spring of 1884, Olcott was interviewed by certain members of the Society for Psychical Research (London) and was asked about his Bombay encounter with the Master Morya: "MR. MYERS [speaking to Colonel Olcott]: We want now an account of seeing your Teacher in the flesh. COLONEL OLCOTT [in reply]: One day at Bombay I was at work in my office when a Hindu servant came and told me that a gentleman wanted to see me in Madame Blavatsky's bungalow---a separate house within the same enclosure as the main building. This was one day in 1879. I went and found alone there my Teacher. Madame Blavatsky was then engaged in animated conversation with other persons in the other bungalow. The interview between the Teacher and myself lasted perhaps 10 minutes, and it related to matters of a private nature with respect to myself and certain current events in the history of the Society..... MR. MYERS [asking Olcott another question]: How do you know that your Teacher was in actual flesh and blood on that occasion? COLONEL OLCOTT [replies]: He put his hand upon my head, and his hand was perfectly substantial; and he had altogether the appearance of an ordinary person. When he walked about the floor there was noise of his footsteps....He came to our place on horseback.... MR. MYERS [with another question]: Was that the only occasion on which you have seen him in the flesh? COLONEL OLCOTT: No; I have seen him at other times. MR. MYERS: Have you seen him three or four times in the flesh? COLONEL OLCOTT: Yes, more than that, but not under circumstances where it would be evidence for others. MR. MYERS: And about how many times [have you seen him] in the astral body? COLONEL OLCOTT: Oh, at least 15 or 20 times. MR. MYERS: And his appearance on all those occasions has been quite unmistakable? COLONEL OLCOTT: As unmistakable as the appearance of either of you gentlemen." (Extracts from the interview Olcott had with members of the London S.P.R. Committee. Quoted from First Report Of The Committee Of The Society For Psychical Research, Appointed To Investigate The Evidence For Marvellous Phenomena Offered By Certain Members Of The Theosophical Society, 1884, pp. 45-48.) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 09:58:25 -0700 From: "D.Caldwell/M.Graye" Subject: Art Gregory on HPB's Masters This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_019F_01BF0A61.2BE9A0A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Art Gregory wrote that: "Colonel Olcott in his testimony reports that he mostly met these Masters in their "doubles' or astral double form. Most of = these contacts with Masters occurred to people in dreams and their = fantasies... If there was contact on the physical plane such contacts were brief and fleeting and could be explained by mere coincidences and mistaken identities... The human mind does this ... connects dots that are not really verifiable or objective...given the power of suggestion, the = person you meet on the street could be a Koothumi." ***Mere*** coincidences and ***mistaken*** identities?? Compare (just for starters) Art Gregory's "Paul Johnson"-like = description with the following testimonies by Olcott at this URL: http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/paranormal.htm#Appendix Then compare Art Gregory's suggestion of the physical Mahatmas as "mere coincidences" and "mistaken identities" with what Colonel Olcott writes below: OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MASTER KOOT HOOMI IN NOVEMBER, 1883 ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF LAHORE, INDIA is to be found in the third volume of = Olcott's Old Diary Leaves: "I was sleeping in my tent, the night of the 19th, when I rushed back towards external consciousness on feeling a hand laid on me. The camp = being on the open plain, and beyond the protection of the Lahore Police, my = first animal instinct was to protect myself from a possible religious = fanatical assassin, so I clutched the stranger by the upper arms, and asked him in Hindustani who he was and what he wanted. It was all done in an instant, = and I held the man tight, as would one who might be attacked the next moment = and have to defend his life. But the next moment a kind, sweet voice said: = 'Do you not know me? Do you not remember me?' It was the voice of the Master K.H. . . .I relaxed my hold on his arms, joined my palms in reverential salutation, and wanted to jump out of bed to show him respect. But his = hand and voice stayed me, and after a few sentences had been exchanged, he = took my left hand in his, gathered the fingers of his right into the palm, = and stood quiet beside my cot, from which I could see his divinely benignant face by the light of the lamp that burned on a packing-case at his back. Presently I felt some soft substance forming in my hand, and the next = minute the Master laid his kind hand on my forehead, uttered a blessing, and = left my half of the large tent to visit Mr. W.T. Brown, who slept in the = other half behind a canvas screen that divided the tent into two rooms. When I = had time to pay attention to myself, I found myself holding in my left hand = a folded paper enwrapped in a silken cloth. To go to the lamp, open and = read it, was naturally my first impulse. I found it to be a letter of private counsel. . . On hearing an exclamation from.[Brown's] side of the = screen, I went in there and he showed me a silk-wrapped letter of like appearance = to mine though of different contents, which he said had been given him much = as mine had been to me, and which we read together. . . .The next evening. = . .we two and Damodar sat in my tent, at 10 o'clock, waiting for an = expected visit from Master K.H. . . .We sat on chairs at the back of the tent so = as not to be observed from the camp: the moon was in its last quarter and = had not risen. After some waiting we heard and saw a tall Hindu approaching = from the side of the open plain. He came to within a few yards of us and = beckoned Damodar to come to him, which he did. He told him that the Master would appear within a few minutes, and that he had some business with Damodar. = It was a pupil of Master K.H. Presently we saw the latter coming from the = same direction, pass his pupil. . .and stop in front of our group, now = standing and saluting in the Indian fashion, some yards away. Brown and I kept = our places, and Damodar went and conversed for a few minutes with the = Teacher, after which he returned to us and the king-like visitor walked away. I = heard his footsteps on the ground. . . .Before retiring, when I was writing my Diary, the pupil lifted the portiere, beckoned to me, and pointed to the figure of his Master [K.H.], waiting for me out on the plain in the starlight. I went to him, we walked off to a safe place at some distance where intruders need not be expected, and then for about a half-hour he = told me what I had to know. . . There were no miracles done at the interview. = . .just two men talking together, a meeting, and a parting when the talk = was over. . . ." (pp. 37-39, 43-45, 1972 reprinting.) Notice Olcott's words: "for about a half-hour he [Master KH] told me = what I had to know". Is this "brief" and "fleeting" as Art Gregory would want us to believe? More accounts for comparison can be found at: http://www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/johnson1.htm If Art Gregory wants us to accept the real "truth" about the Masters = then he will have to first deal with the specifics such as I've outlined above. Gregory's = reliance on general vague statements while ignoring such specifics and details does not win me over to his argument. In fact, I'm completely puzzled by his = reasoning. Daniel Caldwell ------=_NextPart_000_019F_01BF0A61.2BE9A0A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Art Gregory wrote that:

"Colonel = Olcott in=20 his testimony reports that he mostly
met these Masters in their = "doubles' or=20 astral double form. Most of these
contacts with Masters occurred to = people in=20 dreams and their fantasies...
If there was contact on the physical = plane such=20 contacts were brief and
fleeting and could be explained by mere = coincidences=20 and mistaken
identities... The human mind does this ... connects dots = that=20 are not
really verifiable or objective...given the power of = suggestion, the=20 person
you meet on the street could be a = Koothumi."



***Mere***=20 coincidences and ***mistaken*** identities??

Compare (just for = starters)=20 Art Gregory's "Paul Johnson"-like description with
the following = testimonies=20 by Olcott at this URL:

htt= p://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/paranormal.htm#Appendix


= Then=20 compare Art Gregory's suggestion of the physical Mahatmas
as "mere=20 coincidences" and "mistaken identities" with what Colonel
Olcott = writes=20 below:

OLCOTT'S ACCOUNT OF MEETING MASTER KOOT HOOMI IN NOVEMBER, = 1883 ON=20 THE
OUTSKIRTS OF LAHORE, INDIA is to be found in the third volume of = Olcott's=20 Old Diary Leaves:

"I was sleeping in my tent, the night of the = 19th, when=20 I rushed back
towards external consciousness on feeling a hand laid = on me.=20 The camp being
on the open plain, and beyond the protection of the = Lahore=20 Police, my first
animal instinct was to protect myself from a = possible=20 religious fanatical
assassin, so I clutched the stranger by the upper = arms,=20 and asked him in
Hindustani who he was and what he wanted. It was all = done in=20 an instant, and
I held the man tight, as would one who might be = attacked the=20 next moment and
have to defend his life. But the next moment a kind, = sweet=20 voice said: 'Do
you not know me? Do you not remember me?' It was the = voice of=20 the Master
K.H. . . .I relaxed my hold on his arms, joined my palms = in=20 reverential
salutation, and wanted to jump out of bed to show him = respect.=20 But his hand
and voice stayed me, and after a few sentences had been=20 exchanged, he took
my left hand in his, gathered the fingers of his = right=20 into the palm, and
stood quiet beside my cot, from which I could see = his=20 divinely benignant
face by the light of the lamp that burned on a=20 packing-case at his back.
Presently I felt some soft substance = forming in my=20 hand, and the next minute
the Master laid his kind hand on my = forehead,=20 uttered a blessing, and left
my half of the large tent to visit Mr. = W.T.=20 Brown, who slept in the other
half behind a canvas screen that = divided the=20 tent into two rooms. When I had
time to pay attention to myself, I = found=20 myself holding in my left hand a
folded paper enwrapped in a silken = cloth. To=20 go to the lamp, open and read
it, was naturally my first impulse. I = found it=20 to be a letter of private
counsel. . . On hearing an exclamation=20 from.[Brown's] side of the screen, I
went in there and he showed me a = silk-wrapped letter of like appearance to
mine though of different = contents,=20 which he said had been given him much as
mine had been to me, and = which we=20 read together. . . .The next evening. .
.we two and Damodar sat in my = tent,=20 at 10 o'clock, waiting for an expected
visit from Master K.H. . . .We = sat on=20 chairs at the back of the tent so as
not to be observed from the = camp: the=20 moon was in its last quarter and had
not risen. After some waiting we = heard=20 and saw a tall Hindu approaching from
the side of the open plain. He = came to=20 within a few yards of us and beckoned
Damodar to come to him, which = he did.=20 He told him that the Master would
appear within a few minutes, and = that he=20 had some business with Damodar. It
was a pupil of Master K.H. = Presently we=20 saw the latter coming from the same
direction, pass his pupil. . .and = stop in=20 front of our group, now standing
and saluting in the Indian fashion, = some=20 yards away. Brown and I kept our
places, and Damodar went and = conversed for a=20 few minutes with the Teacher,
after which he returned to us and the = king-like=20 visitor walked away. I heard
his footsteps on the ground. . . .Before = retiring, when I was writing my
Diary, the pupil lifted the portiere, = beckoned to me, and pointed to the
figure of his Master [K.H.], = waiting for=20 me out on the plain in the
starlight. I went to him, we walked off to = a safe=20 place at some distance
where intruders need not be expected, and then = for=20 about a half-hour he told
me what I had to know. . . There were no = miracles=20 done at the interview. .
.just two men talking together, a meeting, = and a=20 parting when the talk was
over. . . ." (pp. 37-39, 43-45, 1972=20 reprinting.)

Notice Olcott's words:  "for about = a half-hour=20 he [Master KH] told me what I
had to know".

Is this "brief" and "fleeting" as = Art Gregory=20 would want us to believe?

More accounts for comparison can be = found=20 at:

http:/= /www.blavatsky.net/gen/refute/caldwell/johnson1.htm
 
If Art Gregory wants us to accept = the  real=20 "truth" about the Masters then he will have to
first deal with the specifics such as = I've outlined=20 above.  Gregory's reliance on
general vague statements while ignoring = such=20 specifics and details does
not win me over to his = argument. =20 In fact, I'm completely puzzled by his reasoning.

Daniel=20 Caldwell



------=_NextPart_000_019F_01BF0A61.2BE9A0A0-- From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 18:35:51 -0400 From: "Gerald Schueler" Subject: Space The following is a good example of how words can fool and misdirect. In the MLs, page 404 of my old version, KH writes: "The book of Khiu-te teaches us that space is infinity itself. It is formless, immutable and absolute." The equation space=infinite is diametrically opposed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which is admittedly still a theory albeit a fairly universally accepted one. According to Relativity, space, time, and matter (form) all come into existence together and are meaningless as separate things. Time goes faster near dense matter and matter bends space (and light) around. Space, as understood in modern science is not infinite (it was with the old steady state theory, but not with the commonly accepted Big Bang theory). Our universe is not infinite, but spherical and expanding outward like a blown-up balloon. But "space" has other connotations. In theosophy we talk about cosmic planes so that perhaps there is an astral time and space on the astral plane, and so on for each plane. If KH was referring to space as it is on the spiritual plane, then the above quote would seem quite proper. Blavastky usually capitalized it as Space to designate this difference. In most occult literature there is talk of a demarcation line between nonduality and duality. Zen, for example, calls this where the One becomes the Many. Under this line we have manifestation and this is usually thought to include space and time (Blavatsky uses Motion for time). It is also the beginning of our 7-plane solar system. Space and time within manifestation are neither infinite nor eternal and have no meaning at all without form. Sometimes we read about "duration" where this word is defined as time ticking on forever. It is only relatively true; relative to the human mind and our spacetime continuum, the space and time of the spiritual plane seem to go on forever. But space and time don't really work that way. According to most mystics, above the demarcation line, there is no time or space or form at all. They only come into existence below the line, where they are neither infinite nor eternal but only for so long as one mahamanvantara. So we have to be careful when we read things like space=infinity or time=duration, and try to read between the lines. Just some food for thought. Jerry S. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:35:38 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Space ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:35 PM > Subject: Space > The equation space=infinite is diametrically > opposed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, > which is admittedly still a theory albeit a > fairly universally accepted one. > My understanding and to a degree perception is that time is different in different worlds (planes). In other words, while the Einstein theory may apply to the physical universe *as we perceive it* in space, its relevance to (say) Devachan/Briah is probably nil. At other levels of being, different laws apply. C'est la vie!!! Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:30:46 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Space In a message dated 9/29/99 4:41:07 PM Central Daylight Time, gschueler@iximd.com writes: > The equation space=infinite is diametrically > opposed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, > which is admittedly still a theory albeit a > fairly universally accepted one. > > According to Relativity, space, time, and > matter (form) all come into existence together > and are meaningless as separate things. Time > goes faster near dense matter and matter bends > space (and light) around. Space, as understood > in modern science is not infinite (it was with > the old steady state theory, but not with the > commonly accepted Big Bang theory). Our > universe is not infinite, but spherical and > expanding outward like a blown-up balloon. > As recently retired physicist, I never have heard such half-cooked gobblely-gook mental mush. Sorry, I am mild-mannered and in good humor about most things, but misrepresentation of physics sets me off because there is so much of it. Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:38:43 EDT From: Hazarapet@aol.com Subject: Re: Space In a message dated 9/29/99 8:33:42 PM Central Daylight Time, Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk writes: > time is different in > different worlds (planes). In other words, while the Einstein theory > may apply to the physical universe *as we perceive it* in space As we perceive/live it, time and space are separate - not Einsteinian. We do not perceive relativity. Rather, Einsteinian theory applies to the universe as we mathematically model it using geometry (space) to model energetic states (vectors) according to uniform mechanical motion (clocks - taken as the physical representative of time since time eludes definition so far). In otherwords, to take time as the fourth dimension and vector states as 12 dimensions is to take literally the useful mathematical analogy of thinking about energy states and time geometrically (spatially). Grigor Ananikian From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:02:06 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: Space At 01:35 AM 09/30/1999 +0100, Alan wrote: ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gerald Schueler > Date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 11:35 PM > Subject: Space The equation space=infinite is diametrically opposed to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which is admittedly still a theory albeit a fairly universally accepted one. My understanding and to a degree perception is that time is different in different worlds (planes). In other words, while the Einstein theory may apply to the physical universe *as we perceive it* in space, its relevance to (say) Devachan/Briah is probably nil. At other levels of being, different laws apply. C'est la vie!!! Alan :0) Alan: What a simple fact that we tend to ignore!!! mkr From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:17:38 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 24, 1999 kymsmith@micron.net wrote: > > Grigor wrote: > >Maybe the only thing statistics finds is more statistics. Maybe its > marriage > >in modern world that isn' t what it used to be. In old country, it involves > >almost whole village as in-laws, cousins, and relatives of one degree or > >another. > > Well, again, even in the "old days" marriage still proved an early death > for most women. Spousal abuse is not a modern phenomenon - having one's > family around usually kept a women in her place, rather than serving as a > woman's advocate. Are you trying to say that this was the rule rather than the exception? If so, I would like to see your sources; if not, then I do not understand the relevancy. > >But basically, > >such sayings mean you can't choose your life circumstances, so learn from > it, > >and that a single day out of your life reveals much about your life. > > I understand; however, we can choose some of our life's circumstances - > today, unlike the past, both males and females in Western society can > freely choose to marry or not. Women have yet to gain that right in some > Islamic countries. The tight control of women as opposed to men in the West is actually a relatively recent phenomenon, dating back only about 3-400 years (before, women and men tended to be equally controlled). In the United States, it was never the rule, although it did appear sporadically, especially in wealthy urban areas. (In spite of "Gone With The Wind" imagery, in the "Old South", the business end of the plantations was typically the job of the women, not the men, the latter going out in the fields to supervise the day-to-day operations. The slave system was equal opportunity oppression to both genders). > them (husband, wife, children, dog, cat, bird). If a man can learn > patience in a marriage, but it requires a woman (or a male partner if he is > gay) to endure abuse while the individual learns the lesson of patience, > well, to me, this avenue is the wrong one. That's a big "if". > Now, specifically about my complaint about the quote (not you personally): > As a woman, I so tire of writings, be them political, spiritual, cultural, > theosophical, that tend to revolve around the perspectives of men. Can you give a few examples? And if you define "revolving around the perspectives of men" solely by who is doing the writing, then all you have to do to remedy the situation is to write from your own perspective. > Too > frequently the most accepted and often quoted statements do not really > apply to women's lives and their circumstances. It continues to amaze me > that Theosophy, which was "founded" by a woman, managed to form itself into > a male-oriented and male-dominated philosophy - especially since the > existence of the Gigantic males of theosophy (the Mahatmas) hasn't been > proven. The Mahatmas claim that they can choose whether to incarnate as male or female. The Mahatmas chose, at the time, to come mostly as men because of societal reasons. They made it clear that they did and do come as women when the circumstances warrant it; I would assume that in today's society, there are more female Mahatma's than in previous times. > The only "expert" we know of for sure in Theosophy is a female. I > guess we, as a society, would rather place possible imaginary males in the > "highest" of positions then a real, poke-with-a-stick female. Perhaps HPB > knew more about current human psychology than we give her credit for. . .. Or maybe that is how the Mahatmas felt. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:19:52 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: In support of theosophy hesse600 wrote: > But study Leadbeater's life and celibacy does not seem to > be something he practiced... Leadbeater made it clear that while refraining from sexual release is admirable, if sexual tension becomes a distraction, it is better to relieve it and continue on than live with it. This attitude (and his teaching it to his students) was key to getting him kicked out of the TS. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 08:24:15 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: In support of theosophy hesse600 wrote: > aye, sex in marriage or a stable relationship is allowed > and homosexual relationships are allowed or not, depending > on which national section you are in! Stable homosexual relationships are not allowed. Some national sections look the other way. There was an episode of the American situation comedy, THE ODD COUPLE, where the principles were on a cruise ship. The annoying partner complained about the lack of activities, and the purser made him in charge of finding new activities, and gave him a whistle. The grungy partner asked the purser if he was crazy, and the purser said, "I find that the best way to deal with a potential troublemaker is to give him a whistle. By the way, do you want a whistle?" I think the Mahatmas knew what they were doing when they created the E.S. Bart Lidofsky From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:30:31 -0500 From: RAMADOSS@EDEN.COM Subject: Re: In support of theosophy At 08:24 AM 09/30/1999 -0400, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > I think the Mahatmas knew what they were doing when they created the >E.S. Sure I do believe it to be so. On the other hand, when They chose the founders who were meat eaters and smokers etc while there were 10s of 1000s of people who would fit the traditional stereotype of leading pure lives. It appears that when They were looking for people to launch TS, they were not looking for people who would fit the traditional stereotype. They were obviously looking a lot beyond the personal physical habits. They had to get a job done and so found those who can get the job done. If today, were HPB, HSO, and other leaders were to reappear magically, they would not be allowed to stay/live in TS owned properties and lead the kind of lives they led!!!!!!! mkr PS: Olcott had himself stated that he was a man of bars and women before he got in touch with Theosophy. From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 00:16:28 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Space ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 3:38 AM > Subject: Re: Space > In otherwords, to take time as the fourth > dimension and vector states as 12 dimensions is to take literally the > useful mathematical analogy of thinking about energy states and time > geometrically (spatially). > > Grigor Ananikian > Phew! That's a relief! Alan :0) Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 19:35:56 -0600 From: "JRC" Subject: Re: Space > > In otherwords, to take time as the fourth > > dimension and vector states as 12 dimensions is to take literally the > > useful mathematical analogy of thinking about energy states and time > > geometrically (spatially). > > > > Grigor Ananikian > > > Phew! That's a relief! Wow! ... so Alan - you're kind of an, er, fundamentalist Einstinian ? -JRC From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 01:57:47 +0100 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Space ----- Original Message ----- > From: JRC > Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 2:35 AM > Subject: Re: Space > Wow! ... so Alan - you're kind of an, er, fundamentalist Einstinian > ? -JRC > Could you translate that? Alan Alan@ambain.softnet.co.uk http://www.soft.net.uk/ambain/ From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:01:17 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 27, 1999 In a message dated 9/28/1999 12:01:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Katinka writes: << Yes, but the problem with money is, that it can so easily become the motive, and then, where is my spirituality? Out the window.. >> But on the other hand, if one isn't getting paid, or isn't getting paid enough, then one may begin to worry constantly about money - where the rent money will be coming from, how will we keep the lights on and feed ourselves? Or if one isn't paid for one's "bliss," then one has to keep a nine-to-five job just to pay the bills, on top of striving toward spiritual enlightenment, which can be pretty draining all around. Then the money-grubbing can get worse than if one was paid well enough in the first place to concentrate on the actual work and not on how to survive until the next few dollars dribble in. At least that's been my experience. I've had the "freedom" of freelancing, which boiled down to being desperate and on-call round the clock - and I've had a steady paycheck and been able to leave my job and come home to pursuits of my own choice, and at the moment I prefer the latter, as it affords me both some measure of at least apparent financial security and some "free time" that's more free than if I were waiting by the phone, hoping the next customer might call, or hawking my wares. Eventually I'd love to freelance, and volunteer, but only if I could work it out so that I had enough financial security that I didn't have to worry about money constantly. Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:02:20 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 27, 1999 In a message dated 9/28/1999 12:01:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << > Hi Kym and Christine... I agree. Hi Kym and Christine. >> Hi everyone. Not sure if I'm the Christine you're referring to, but I'll take the risk... Christine (Hanson) From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:02:58 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 27, 1999 In a message dated 9/28/1999 12:01:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Alan writes: << (Get out of jail free cards available at $50 each, signed by hand) >> Sorry, I only work for free, so I can't afford it. (NOT) :) Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:07:26 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 25, 1999 In a message dated 9/26/1999 12:01:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << > My mother (rest her many souls) could make a vodka martini that would floor > an elephant. > What it have? A mouse anchovy in it? >> This reminds me of my mother's "eggnog" with brandy. I use quotation marks because it's so heavy on the brandy that we joke, "Would you like a little eggnog with your brandy?" Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:09:10 EDT From: Cybercmh@aol.com Subject: Re: theos-l digest: September 25, 1999 In a message dated 9/26/1999 12:01:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, theos-l@list.vnet.net writes: << My mother (rest her many souls) could make a vodka martini that would floor > an elephant. > > Chuck the Heretic > I remember it well. Elephant. >> You remember the floor, or the elephant? :) Christine From ???@??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:16:03 -0400 From: Bart Lidofsky Subject: Re: is it theosophical if you get paid money? hesse600 wrote: > Yes, but the problem with money is, that it can so easily > become the motive, and then, where is my spirituality? > Out the window... Not being sure of my motive, I don't know > for sure whether my turoring falls under theosophy... What is the difference between money and spirituality? Bart Lidofsky